Re: Frankfurt School (Re: What does an evolutionist actually believe?)
Sylvia Knörr
im Newsbeitrag news:63Qdf.533499$x96.533373@attbi_s72...
> "Sylvia Knörr" <sylvia.kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:dkop84$8ou$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
> >> This takes us back up to the previous thread, where we spoke of
> > xenophobia,
> >> kinship, preference, and altruism.
> > Yesterday I attended a lecture of one of my favorite ethnologues, Wulf
> > Schiefenhövel (probably unknown in the US). He presented his model of
> > human
> > xenophobia, and according to him there are, like the skins of an onion,
> > spheres of decreasing altruism and increasing xenophobia going from the
> > ego as the center.
> Schiefenhovel is new to me.
To view:
http://erl.orn.mpg.de/~schiefen/
> However, his model seems to be correct, as far
> as I know. The farther we move away from our immediate selves and
concerns,
> the less altruism we have to share. There have been the exceptional cases
> (like Gandhi and Mother Teresa), but they are quite rare.
We find them remarkable BECAUSE they are exceptions to the rule that we care
about our relatives, not about strangers. Nobody is considered a hero or
anything special because s/he made big sacrifices for their family.
> > The closer related we are, the more altruism will be found. We would
share
> > everything with our next of kin (children, brothers and sisters), a lot
with
> > our extended family, a lot with our clan, and still some things with
distant
> > members of our ethnicity or our language group. But with growing genetic
> > distance, xenophobia will increase.
> The interesting part of that business comes in mate selection, where one
> tries to find someone enough like oneself (shared genes) but just
different
> enough (variety helps sustain and tends to protect against undesirable
> traits); thus we see, for bad example, the GIs who traveled to rather
> "exotic" foreign shores and married local women (like all the guys who
> brought home wives from Japan, Korea, Indonesia, and such).
I wouldn't call it a BAD example, I actually advocate mixed marriage (as
long as it is done in due fairness for both sides), because some foreign
genes supply variety to the gene pool, thus people might be healthier.
Many tribal people maintain complicated mating rules which make sure that
inbreeding can't abound.
However, the general rule is that the overwhelming majority of people
worldwide find their mating partner within the reach of about 50 kilometers
(a wider circle for citizens of industrialized, highly mobile societies, a
smaller circle for people from the hinderland with low infrastructure). Most
of us prefer partners who share the same culture, or at least speak the same
language.
> > In most so-called "primitive" societies it is considered normal to hate
and
> > wage war against "the others", even if they are just from the neighbor
> > village. But our modern society demands a lot of altruism towards
> > foreigners
> > and forbids xenophobia. Thus our instincts and the claims of society are
> > in contradiction. But then, isn't culture almost always contradicting
nature?
> There are always tensions between diads. We've seen that since the
> pre-Socratic thinkers, and Heidegger did an excellent job of laying out
the
> ontological and phenomenological bases for those tensions. One ought be
> careful whether to speak of them as "contradictory." While they may seem
> contradictory, these traits tend to serve useful purposes, either short-
or
> long-term. If, however, we define "useful" in terms of genetic survival.
You are right, we should look at each trait in the light of its usefulness,
genetically-wise.
> As to culture and nature being contradictory, that is part of the crux of
> the problem. Since our innate natures were formed three or four million
> years ago (or much longer), that nature is geared towards the
hunter-gather
> scenario. Modern socio-cultural influences and settings tend to operate
> counter to that innate nature and thus increases "internal" tensions
> (psycho-emotional problems) unless the individual finds ways in which
to...
> what's the proper Freudian term... transfer those tensions into useful
daily
> pursuits. Those who are less well educated (that's not quite the right
term,
> either) tend to be less capable of sublimating or transferring those
> tensions into something useful. That's why ever once in a while such
people
> blow up and do destructive things, either to themselves or to others.
Yes, sublimating or transferring tensions has become crucial in our urban
surrounding where our hunter-gather instincts have to be strictly controlled
to avoid conflicts. And it's often the "intellectually challenged" people
who lose control and do inappropriate things. After all, to call someone
"primitive", "caveman" or "neanderthal man" is derogatory! :-)
> >> Your last line, "not a dramatic increase but it will sum up," just
sounds
> >> so positively Hegelian! Thanks for the smile!
> > This Hegelian trait must be in my German genes! :-))
> Good old Hegel. He's still dead, too.
Yes, but *I* am still alive. ;-))
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP, BLT, DOA
"Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:dllu0f$8n7$01$2...@news.t-online.com...
> "Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP, BLT, DOA" <someo...@microsoft.com>
> schrieb
> im Newsbeitrag news:63Qdf.533499$x96.533373@attbi_s72...
>> "Sylvia Knörr" <sylvia.kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
>> news:dkop84$8ou$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
>
Thanks!
>> The interesting part of that business comes in mate selection, where one
>> tries to find someone enough like oneself (shared genes) but just
> different
>> enough (variety helps sustain and tends to protect against undesirable
>> traits); thus we see, for bad example, the GIs who traveled to rather
>> "exotic" foreign shores and married local women (like all the guys who
>> brought home wives from Japan, Korea, Indonesia, and such).
>
> I wouldn't call it a BAD example, I actually advocate mixed marriage (as
> long as it is done in due fairness for both sides), because some foreign
> genes supply variety to the gene pool, thus people might be healthier.
> Many tribal people maintain complicated mating rules which make sure that
> inbreeding can't abound.
Excuse me if I made it sound like a BAD example. I was just making an
example: we tend to mate-preference those who are very similar but with a
bit of difference. It's good for the gene pool, which apparently has one end
that is very shallow.
> However, the general rule is that the overwhelming majority of people
> worldwide find their mating partner within the reach of about 50
> kilometers
> (a wider circle for citizens of industrialized, highly mobile societies, a
> smaller circle for people from the hinderland with low infrastructure).
> Most
> of us prefer partners who share the same culture, or at least speak the
> same
> language.
That tends to prove our points made earlier.
> Yes, sublimating or transferring tensions has become crucial in our urban
> surrounding where our hunter-gather instincts have to be strictly
> controlled
> to avoid conflicts. And it's often the "intellectually challenged" people
> who lose control and do inappropriate things. After all, to call someone
> "primitive", "caveman" or "neanderthal man" is derogatory! :-)
It is interesting, however, that some of the most crowded of people; e.g.,
the Japanese, have managed to live without having serious person-to-person
violence (aside from the occasional civil war) while less-crowded cultures;
e.g., America, have on-going problems with p2p violence. The reason, here
again, I think, is the underlying cultural sense that the society (the band,
the group) is more important than the individual. Thus we can see how
cultures can become counter-productive at a very basic level, even when the
tendency and counter-productivity can easily be seen.
>
>> >> Your last line, "not a dramatic increase but it will sum up," just
> sounds
>> >> so positively Hegelian! Thanks for the smile!
>
>> > This Hegelian trait must be in my German genes! :-))
>
>> Good old Hegel. He's still dead, too.
>
> Yes, but *I* am still alive. ;-))
For which I am grateful.
BTW, and apropos of nothing -- which day of the calendar is "Bitt und Bett
Tag"?
Sylvia Knörr
> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:dllu0f$8n7$01$2...@news.t-online.com...
> > "Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP, BLT, DOA" <someo...@microsoft.com>
> > schrieb
> > im Newsbeitrag news:63Qdf.533499$x96.533373@attbi_s72...
> >> "Sylvia Knörr" <sylvia.kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> >> news:dkop84$8ou$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
> >> The interesting part of that business comes in mate selection, where
one
> >> tries to find someone enough like oneself (shared genes) but just
different
> >> enough (variety helps sustain and tends to protect against undesirable
> >> traits); thus we see, for bad example, the GIs who traveled to rather
> >> "exotic" foreign shores and married local women (like all the guys who
> >> brought home wives from Japan, Korea, Indonesia, and such).
> > I wouldn't call it a BAD example, I actually advocate mixed marriage (as
> > long as it is done in due fairness for both sides), because some foreign
> > genes supply variety to the gene pool, thus people might be healthier.
> > Many tribal people maintain complicated mating rules which make sure
that
> > inbreeding can't abound.
> Excuse me if I made it sound like a BAD example.
No problem. It could as well be a comprehension problem on MY side. Since
English isn't my mother tongue, I sometimes miss the subtleties.
I was just making an
> example: we tend to mate-preference those who are very similar but with a
> bit of difference. It's good for the gene pool, which apparently has one
end
> that is very shallow.
What does that mean, "one end that is very shallow"?
> > Yes, sublimating or transferring tensions has become crucial in our
urban
> > surrounding where our hunter-gather instincts have to be strictly
> > controlled
> > to avoid conflicts. And it's often the "intellectually challenged"
people
> > who lose control and do inappropriate things. After all, to call someone
> > "primitive", "caveman" or "neanderthal man" is derogatory! :-)
> It is interesting, however, that some of the most crowded of people; e.g.,
> the Japanese, have managed to live without having serious person-to-person
> violence (aside from the occasional civil war) while less-crowded
cultures;
> e.g., America, have on-going problems with p2p violence. The reason, here
> again, I think, is the underlying cultural sense that the society (the
band,
> the group) is more important than the individual. Thus we can see how
> cultures can become counter-productive at a very basic level, even when
the
> tendency and counter-productivity can easily be seen.
The Japanese are a "face" culture, for Japanese people it is very important
to "save face", and the public display of aggression is one way to LOSE
face. So maybe it is not only the group bondages which lead to the high
degree of discipline in the Japanese society (as well as several other Asian
societies).
Japanese have tight rules of etiquette and arrangements just to avoid
embarrassing situations. Of course, that's just ONE aspect of the full
package of reasons why Eastern and Western societies are quite different.
> >> >> Your last line, "not a dramatic increase but it will sum up," just
> >> >> sounds so positively Hegelian! Thanks for the smile!
> >> > This Hegelian trait must be in my German genes! :-))
> >> Good old Hegel. He's still dead, too.
> > Yes, but *I* am still alive. ;-))
> For which I am grateful.
Thanks, I take this for a compliment! :-)
> BTW, and apropos of nothing -- which day of the calendar is "Bitt und Bett
> Tag"?
LOL. You mean "Buß- und Bettag" (literally: day of penance and prayer). It's
a Protestant holiday in November (no fixed day), and it used to be a
national holiday until the 90ies, but now it's no longer work free (except
in Saxony). Like most holidays in November, it is a "quiet" holiday, when
people are expected to observe meditation and spiritual purification.
This year it was November 16th.
P.S: "Bitt und Bett Tag" would literally mean "day of petition and bed" :-))
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP, BLT, DOA
>
>> Excuse me if I made it sound like a BAD example.
>
> No problem. It could as well be a comprehension problem on MY side. Since
> English isn't my mother tongue, I sometimes miss the subtleties.
At this point, your English is far better than my German ever was. (see
below)
> I was just making an
>> example: we tend to mate-preference those who are very similar but with a
>> bit of difference. It's good for the gene pool, which apparently has one
> end
>> that is very shallow.
>
> What does that mean, "one end that is very shallow"?
It was a pun on the word "pool" and two of its meanings, implying that the
gene pool is like a swimming pool. Most swimming pools have a shallow end
for the young, the old, the weak, and those who've not learned to swim. The
gene pool has a shallow end where genetic variety is seriously limited.
>
>> It is interesting, however, that some of the most crowded of people;
>> e.g.,
>> the Japanese, have managed to live without having serious
>> person-to-person
>> violence (aside from the occasional civil war) while less-crowded
> cultures;
>> e.g., America, have on-going problems with p2p violence. The reason, here
>> again, I think, is the underlying cultural sense that the society (the
> band,
>> the group) is more important than the individual. Thus we can see how
>> cultures can become counter-productive at a very basic level, even when
> the
>> tendency and counter-productivity can easily be seen.
>
> The Japanese are a "face" culture, for Japanese people it is very
> important
> to "save face", and the public display of aggression is one way to LOSE
> face. So maybe it is not only the group bondages which lead to the high
> degree of discipline in the Japanese society (as well as several other
> Asian
> societies).
> Japanese have tight rules of etiquette and arrangements just to avoid
> embarrassing situations. Of course, that's just ONE aspect of the full
> package of reasons why Eastern and Western societies are quite different.
Let me think about this for a day or two, please.
>
>> For which I am grateful.
>
> Thanks, I take this for a compliment! :-)
It was meant as such.
>> BTW, and apropos of nothing -- which day of the calendar is "Bitt und
>> Bett
>> Tag"?
>
> LOL. You mean "Buß- und Bettag" (literally: day of penance and prayer).
> It's
> a Protestant holiday in November (no fixed day), and it used to be a
> national holiday until the 90ies, but now it's no longer work free (except
> in Saxony). Like most holidays in November, it is a "quiet" holiday, when
> people are expected to observe meditation and spiritual purification.
> This year it was November 16th.
> P.S: "Bitt und Bett Tag" would literally mean "day of petition and bed"
> :-))
It's been some thirty years since I've written or spoken German at all. My
skills are seriously deteriorated.
Then again, if you knew my second ex-wife, you could see how "petition" and
"bed" might actually go together. ;>
Sylvia Knörr
> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:dmarjq$nv5$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
> > I was just making an
> >> example: we tend to mate-preference those who are very similar but with
a
> >> bit of difference. It's good for the gene pool, which apparently has
one end
> >> that is very shallow.
> > What does that mean, "one end that is very shallow"?
> It was a pun on the word "pool" and two of its meanings, implying that the
> gene pool is like a swimming pool. Most swimming pools have a shallow end
> for the young, the old, the weak, and those who've not learned to swim.
The
> gene pool has a shallow end where genetic variety is seriously limited.
Hehe, now I get it. But with people being mobile and interbreeding all
around the world I am quite optimistic about the human gene pool. :-)
> >> It is interesting, however, that some of the most crowded of people;
> >> e.g., the Japanese, have managed to live without having serious
> >> person-to-person
> >> violence (aside from the occasional civil war) while less-crowded
cultures;
> >> e.g., America, have on-going problems with p2p violence. The reason,
here
> >> again, I think, is the underlying cultural sense that the society (the
band,
> >> the group) is more important than the individual. Thus we can see how
> >> cultures can become counter-productive at a very basic level, even when
> >> the tendency and counter-productivity can easily be seen.
> > The Japanese are a "face" culture, for Japanese people it is very
important
> > to "save face", and the public display of aggression is one way to LOSE
> > face. So maybe it is not only the group bondages which lead to the high
> > degree of discipline in the Japanese society (as well as several other
> > Asian societies).
> > Japanese have tight rules of etiquette and arrangements just to avoid
> > embarrassing situations. Of course, that's just ONE aspect of the full
> > package of reasons why Eastern and Western societies are quite
different.
> Let me think about this for a day or two, please.
As long as you please. You practice Asian contemplation? ;-)
> >> BTW, and apropos of nothing -- which day of the calendar is "Bitt und
> >> Bett Tag"?
> > LOL. You mean "Buß- und Bettag" (literally: day of penance and prayer).
> > It's a Protestant holiday in November (no fixed day), and it used to be
a
> > national holiday until the 90ies, but now it's no longer work free
(except
> > in Saxony). Like most holidays in November, it is a "quiet" holiday,
when
> > people are expected to observe meditation and spiritual purification.
> > This year it was November 16th.
> > P.S: "Bitt und Bett Tag" would literally mean "day of petition and bed"
> > :-))
> It's been some thirty years since I've written or spoken German at all. My
> skills are seriously deteriorated.
No worries. Why should you keep German vocabulary in mind for 30 years when
you don't need them? Too much unused data blocks the brain! :-))
> Then again, if you knew my second ex-wife, you could see how "petition"
and
> "bed" might actually go together. ;>
Hmm, this gets my imagination turned on...:-))
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP, BLT, DOA
>
> "Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP, BLT, DOA" <someo...@microsoft.com>
> schrieb
> im Newsbeitrag news:jydkf.591150$x96.487897@attbi_s72...
>> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
>> news:dmarjq$nv5$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
>
Sylvia, the question is, "Why are the Japanese (and most other Asian
cultures) 'face' cultures?" rather than being more similar to other cultures
of the world."
I"m still thinking about this one. Pardon me for having a bit slower wit
than usual.
Sylvia Knörr
This is indeed an interesting question, and I also wondered how this system
could emerge. (I consider it as a system of rules for social interaction).
As I understand it, there are - depending on culture - different systems of
how to deal with HONOR. The concepts of honor differ widely, as well as the
constituents of honor. This again has to do with the VALUES which are
considered important in a particular society, and I think these depend on
the environment -at least part of it.
For example: male control of the female prudishness is a dominant value in
the hot and dry countries of the Middle East, while in the hot and humid
countries of Asia and America the honor of men does NOT depend upon the
sexual behavior of the females the same way.
Another issue is the attitude towards AGGRESSION - aggressive behavior is
tolerated in some countries, while in others people are expected to control
their aggressiveness.
'Face cultures' like the Japanese seem to be countries where self control is
a high value, and my personal hypothesis is that it has to do with FAMILY
bondages, because the resonsibility for the family is bigger than the rights
of the individual in those "face cultures".
I *think* that family bondages are somehow crucial, because I know several
people from South East Asia (mostly Filipinos), and I know some people from
Southern America (from Brasil, Ecuador, Mexico and Cuba), and of course I
wondered why the Filipinos have that 'face' thing, while the Americanos
don't have it, although they act similarly in many other ways. One thing I
found out is that the Filipinos have a family system where the ELDEST
sibling (both sexes) is expected to help their parents to support the
younger ones, even to a degree of self-sacrifice. That means, the eldest
sibling has to work hard, or marry some rich guy abroad, and send all the
money back home to pay for an education for the younger ones, even if these
eldest siblings have to give up ALL their personal dreams and hopes for
that. As far as I know, most of them really ACCEPT that role more or less.
When I asked the South Americans whether they have any similar expectations
towards the eldest siblings I was told that there is nothing of that kind -
all siblings support each other, but they are not RESPONSIBLE for each
other.
That means, for Asians, the 'family honor' can be damaged if one member of
the family is doing something disgusting, for South Americans, the family
honor can remain intact even if one sibling lost his or her honor. To deal
with the threat of loss of the family honor, the 'face' system was born.
But these are just my personal observations and conclusions.
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch
>
> "Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP, BLT, DOA" <someo...@microsoft.com>
> schrieb
> im Newsbeitrag news:KDdpf.628895$x96.258939@attbi_s72...
>
>
> system
> could emerge. (I consider it as a system of rules for social interaction).
> As I understand it, there are - depending on culture - different systems
> of
> how to deal with HONOR. The concepts of honor differ widely, as well as
> the
> constituents of honor. This again has to do with the VALUES which are
> considered important in a particular society, and I think these depend on
> the environment -at least part of it.
> For example: male control of the female prudishness is a dominant value in
> the hot and dry countries of the Middle East, while in the hot and humid
> countries of Asia and America the honor of men does NOT depend upon the
> sexual behavior of the females the same way.
> Another issue is the attitude towards AGGRESSION - aggressive behavior is
> tolerated in some countries, while in others people are expected to
> control
> their aggressiveness.
>
Quite some years ago there was a sociological study correlating the
population trends of a culture and its relationship towards tradition,
social conditions, or personal endeavor. Basically, a stable society with an
increasing population tends to look more like modern American society;
stable societies with stable populations tend to look much like European
social culture; stable societies that "get by" (a stable population that
could fall into horrid famine at any minute) tended to look more like Asian
cultures. The latter groups tended to be very tradition-oriented, tended to
place great value on personal status (cast-oriented), and tended towards
strict adherence to social norms and mores.
There were also correlations of cultures with declining populations, rapidly
increasing populations, and so on and so forth, but I cannot remember all
the details. If I remember the author and title, I'll let you know. This is
memory retrieved from forty years distance, however.
I tend to be suspicious of climatological explanations because there isn't a
very high degree of correlation or consistence. EVen beyond that, we need to
look for the biological bases that drive these trends.
Still some more thinking needs to be done.
Frohe neues Jahr!
Sylvia Knörr
"Aardvark J. Bandersnatch" <some...@microslinux.com> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:MxUtf.664167$x96.545558@attbi_s72...
These correlations immediately make some sense to me, and also immediatly
the question about "which is hen and which is egg?" rises.
Does the attitude of a society towards traditions etc cause the particular
prosperity and stability, or is it vice versa, that a certain level of
prosperity and stability leads to certain traditions?
> There were also correlations of cultures with declining populations,
rapidly
> increasing populations, and so on and so forth, but I cannot remember all
> the details. If I remember the author and title, I'll let you know. This
is
> memory retrieved from forty years distance, however.
Hand to find something which dates back to the times BEFORE the internet
existed. :-))
Anyway, the fact that you still remember this study means that it must have
been quite convincing to you.
> I tend to be suspicious of climatological explanations because there isn't
a
> very high degree of correlation or consistence. EVen beyond that, we need
to
> look for the biological bases that drive these trends.
Climatological conditions may not have a monocausal effect on human
societies, but climate is surely linked with human societies because it
provides some basic conditions, like landscape. Climate makes a difference
on how harsh or comfortable life can be, and climate does not permit the
same levels of competiton, cooperation or individual autonomity in every
place.
Effects may be blurred since humans moved around a lot, and a society may
live far from its place of origin today, so their traditions were shaped in
a different climate.
> Still some more thinking needs to be done.
Let's try...:-)
> Frohe neues Jahr!
Danke, and a prosperous New Year to you, too!
Comm
>
>
>> Sylvia, the question is, "Why are the Japanese (and most other Asian
>> cultures) 'face' cultures?" rather than being more similar to other
> cultures
>> of the world."
>>
>> I"m still thinking about this one. Pardon me for having a bit slower wit
>> than usual.
>
>
> This is indeed an interesting question, and I also wondered how this
> system
> could emerge. (I consider it as a system of rules for social interaction).
> As I understand it, there are - depending on culture - different systems
> of
> how to deal with HONOR. The concepts of honor differ widely, as well as
> the
> constituents of honor. This again has to do with the VALUES which are
> considered important in a particular society, and I think these depend on
> the environment -at least part of it.
Read up on some of the British aristocracy etiquitte - it's not much
different from the Japanese. These are all rules for social interaction
when the societies are set up like hierarchies. Japan used to be (might
still be) and Britain used to be too. In other words, Gentlemen did not act
like Commoners.
> For example: male control of the female prudishness is a dominant value in
> the hot and dry countries of the Middle East,
That is because the men fear women and the woman's influence on men that
tends to make men "lose control." It's also in their Islamic religion.
while in the hot and humid
> countries of Asia and America the honor of men does NOT depend upon the
> sexual behavior of the females the same way.
You mean, not anymore. In ALL patriarchal societies, it was the same until
people fought the trend and changed it. If by America you include hot and
humid Hispanic S. America - then you are very wrong. Machismo IS the
dominant culture - and if say if a man wants to dance with a woman - he has
to ask her husband for permission. In N. America, a man who had a loose
wife was shamed and considered a cuckold. It's a British word. Middle
English to give you a time period: cokewald - it's from vulgar Latin.
> Another issue is the attitude towards AGGRESSION - aggressive behavior is
> tolerated in some countries, while in others people are expected to
> control
> their aggressiveness.
But most Asian societies have martial arts - where aggression is controlled
and by various means used to wield some lethal blows. Aggression is not
tolerated in most civilized societies - and by that I mean the emote
reactive type of aggression.
>
> 'Face cultures' like the Japanese seem to be countries where self control
> is
> a high value,
It used to that way here too, until the 60s turned society on its head.
People with no self control used to be considered morons, idiots, or
extremely immature, like babies. Someone might tell them to "grow up."
and my personal hypothesis is that it has to do with FAMILY
> bondages, because the resonsibility for the family is bigger than the
> rights
> of the individual in those "face cultures".
Used to be the same way here in America, even when I was a kid. The
overturning of that social ideal resulted in a lot of worthless kids that
don't do chores and don't feel they have to do anything to get food and
shelter from parents. They do NOT help out. They don't feel the need to.
They can even be reckless and overall bad kids and parents can't even
discipline them.
> I *think* that family bondages are somehow crucial, because I know several
> people from South East Asia (mostly Filipinos), and I know some people
> from
> Southern America (from Brasil, Ecuador, Mexico and Cuba), and of course I
> wondered why the Filipinos have that 'face' thing, while the Americanos
> don't have it, although they act similarly in many other ways. One thing I
> found out is that the Filipinos have a family system where the ELDEST
> sibling (both sexes) is expected to help their parents to support the
> younger ones, even to a degree of self-sacrifice. That means, the eldest
> sibling has to work hard, or marry some rich guy abroad, and send all the
> money back home to pay for an education for the younger ones, even if
> these
> eldest siblings have to give up ALL their personal dreams and hopes for
> that. As far as I know, most of them really ACCEPT that role more or less.
> When I asked the South Americans whether they have any similar
> expectations
> towards the eldest siblings I was told that there is nothing of that
> kind -
> all siblings support each other, but they are not RESPONSIBLE for each
> other.
> That means, for Asians, the 'family honor' can be damaged if one member of
> the family is doing something disgusting, for South Americans, the family
> honor can remain intact even if one sibling lost his or her honor. To deal
> with the threat of loss of the family honor, the 'face' system was born.
That whole statement contradicts real life Hispanic behavior I've seen in
person, except for the part about the oldest sibling.
Comm
"Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP, BLT, DOA" <someo...@microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:KDdpf.628895$x96.258939@attbi_s72...
>
> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:dn7udv$lcl$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
>>
>>
>> important
>>> > to "save face", and the public display of aggression is one way to
>>> > LOSE
>>> > face. So maybe it is not only the group bondages which lead to the
>>> > high
>>> > degree of discipline in the Japanese society (as well as several other
>>> > Asian societies).
>>> > Japanese have tight rules of etiquette and arrangements just to avoid
>>> > embarrassing situations. Of course, that's just ONE aspect of the full
>>> > package of reasons why Eastern and Western societies are quite
>> different.
The Japanese are also a homogenous culture and society - they are NOT so
nice to Koreans - and American citizens that were of Japanese and Black
parentage had quite a bit to say about what they experienced in Japan. They
were disliked - and openly so.
>>
>>> Let me think about this for a day or two, please.
>>
>> As long as you please. You practice Asian contemplation? ;-)
>
> Sylvia, the question is, "Why are the Japanese (and most other Asian
> cultures) 'face' cultures?" rather than being more similar to other
> cultures of the world."
I think many cultures, homogenous ones, have rules of etiquitte in their
culture, norms of behavior, appropriateness of action that involve "not
shaming yourself" and "not dishonoring yourself" (which is what lose face
means). When you lose face, you shed bad light on all people related to
you, your family. This is also very much the case in European societies.
If you ever saw some show here, one of those talk shows where the
interviewer had Dr. Mengele's son on, you'd know how this works. What was
he supposed to do, rebuke his father for some crime the father did during
wartime - when the son was a baby? Turns out in the end, it was discovered
that the son and the family were indeed helping him and they did know where
he was. Family loyalty.
People tend to FEEL more kinship with their kin - and those that are most
like themselves. That's just the way it is and no amount of "teaching" is
going to change that.
Comm
>
> "Aardvark J. Bandersnatch" <some...@microslinux.com> schrieb im
> Newsbeitrag news:MxUtf.664167$x96.545558@attbi_s72...
>
> the question about "which is hen and which is egg?" rises.
> Does the attitude of a society towards traditions etc cause the particular
> prosperity and stability, or is it vice versa, that a certain level of
> prosperity and stability leads to certain traditions?
The levels of prosperity and stability lead to certain traditions. This is
even the case in other primates. 3 types: scares resources you get male
dominant with alpha males that lord it over females and smaller males;
resources but restricted to forage area and not dependable - you get groups
of females that band together and shoo males off if they try to get too big
for their britches and 3, abundance - you get a pretty open society that
way. I wrote some of this up here - I give the primate data (scroll down).
http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-humans-tod
IF climate were the explanation, then a change of climate would produce a
change of social strategies. This doesn't seem to be the case - unless no
one is alive long enough to witness it happening.
Sylvia Knörr
"Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:gPyAf.4225$vU2...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Sure, the rules for the "high society" are generally more strict than for
commoners. It is also clear that EVERY society has concepts of honor and how
to safe it in everyday interaction. But still I think there are some
differences in the Eastern ans Western concepts about it. As I understand
it, a Japananese has not only to care about his or her OWN honor, but also
has to care about not causing others to lose face.
In Europe (and USA, I suppose), if person A is shouting at person B in a
crowded restaurant, it will be person B to feel embarrassed. In Japan, BOTH
person A AND person B would feel embarrassed.
> > For example: male control of the female prudishness is a dominant value
in
> > the hot and dry countries of the Middle East,
> That is because the men fear women and the woman's influence on men that
> tends to make men "lose control." It's also in their Islamic religion.
Yes, it has a lot to do with control of the female family members.
> while in the hot and humid
> > countries of Asia and America the honor of men does NOT depend upon the
> > sexual behavior of the females the same way.
> You mean, not anymore. In ALL patriarchal societies, it was the same
until
> people fought the trend and changed it. If by America you include hot and
> humid Hispanic S. America - then you are very wrong. Machismo IS the
> dominant culture - and if say if a man wants to dance with a woman - he
has
> to ask her husband for permission. In N. America, a man who had a loose
> wife was shamed and considered a cuckold. It's a British word. Middle
> English to give you a time period: cokewald - it's from vulgar Latin.
I admit that the climate explanation doesn't hold water, and patriarchal
societies are the norm. Yet it seems to me that female oppression is worst
among Muslims. In Mexico a man has to ask a woman's husband for his
permission to dance with his wife, but in Afghanistan a man would better not
even *think* of asking his neighbor for a dance with his wife.
Why did patriarchal structures did get so EXTREME in some parts of the
world?
> > Another issue is the attitude towards AGGRESSION - aggressive behavior
is
> > tolerated in some countries, while in others people are expected to
> > control
> > their aggressiveness.
> But most Asian societies have martial arts - where aggression is
controlled
> and by various means used to wield some lethal blows. Aggression is not
> tolerated in most civilized societies - and by that I mean the emote
> reactive type of aggression.
Martial arts are far from being unrestrained aggression, they are CULTIVATED
forms of dealing with aggression, like sports.
It is true that overt uncontrolled aggression is not tolerated in most
societies, but the concept about WHAT is considered "aggressiveness",
differs widely. As well as the idea of retaliation.
> > 'Face cultures' like the Japanese seem to be countries where self
control
> > is a high value,
> It used to that way here too, until the 60s turned society on its head.
> People with no self control used to be considered morons, idiots, or
> extremely immature, like babies. Someone might tell them to "grow up."
Right, there was a "youth revolution" in the 60ies due to the bigger
personal autonomy which individuals had gained, until people realized that
we can't live without rules.
> and my personal hypothesis is that it has to do with FAMILY
> > bondages, because the resonsibility for the family is bigger than the
> > rights of the individual in those "face cultures".
> Used to be the same way here in America, even when I was a kid. The
> overturning of that social ideal resulted in a lot of worthless kids that
> don't do chores and don't feel they have to do anything to get food and
> shelter from parents. They do NOT help out. They don't feel the need to.
> They can even be reckless and overall bad kids and parents can't even
> discipline them.
Why is it so? Because children do not NEED their families any longer as
badly as they needed them in the centuries before, when no governmental
programs would care for the individual.
That still doesn't explain the differences of family bondages between
Western and Asian societies.
Sylvia Knörr
> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:dppnsd$ono$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
> > "Aardvark J. Bandersnatch" <some...@microslinux.com> schrieb im
> > Newsbeitrag news:MxUtf.664167$x96.545558@attbi_s72...
> > These correlations immediately make some sense to me, and also
immediatly
> > the question about "which is hen and which is egg?" rises.
> > Does the attitude of a society towards traditions etc cause the
particular
> > prosperity and stability, or is it vice versa, that a certain level of
> > prosperity and stability leads to certain traditions?
> The levels of prosperity and stability lead to certain traditions. This
is
> even the case in other primates. 3 types: scares resources you get male
> dominant with alpha males that lord it over females and smaller males;
> resources but restricted to forage area and not dependable - you get
groups
> of females that band together and shoo males off if they try to get too
big
> for their britches and 3, abundance - you get a pretty open society that
> way. I wrote some of this up here - I give the primate data (scroll
down).
> http://www.geocities.com/go_darkness/god-humans-tod
Careful when talking about primates - their behavior does not allow the same
spectrum of variation as human behavior. Just take gorillas for instance. No
matter whether their habitat offers an abundance or scarcity of food plants,
they ALWAYS follow the pattern of huge males having a harem of several
smaller females. They just have no choice about their way of life. Humans
have.
> >> There were also correlations of cultures with declining populations,
rapidly
> >> increasing populations, and so on and so forth, but I cannot remember
all
> >> the details. If I remember the author and title, I'll let you know.
This
> >> is memory retrieved from forty years distance, however.
> > Hard to find something which dates back to the times BEFORE the internet
> > existed. :-))
> > Anyway, the fact that you still remember this study means that it must
> > have been quite convincing to you.
> >> I tend to be suspicious of climatological explanations because there
> >> isn't a
> >> very high degree of correlation or consistence. EVen beyond that, we
need
> >> to look for the biological bases that drive these trends.
> > Climatological conditions may not have a monocausal effect on human
> > societies, but climate is surely linked with human societies because it
> > provides some basic conditions, like landscape. Climate makes a
difference
> > on how harsh or comfortable life can be, and climate does not permit the
> > same levels of competiton, cooperation or individual autonomity in every
> > place.
> > Effects may be blurred since humans moved around a lot, and a society
may
> > live far from its place of origin today, so their traditions were shaped
> > in a different climate.
> IF climate were the explanation, then a change of climate would produce a
> change of social strategies. This doesn't seem to be the case - unless no
> one is alive long enough to witness it happening.
Like I said before, climate may not be *THE* explanation, but it is part of
it. Since climate usually does not change dramatically within a lifetime
(given that human kind evolved long before the age of rapid global migration
movements), humans had time to adapt as they roamed within an area. Social
interaction was gradually adjusted to the environment - with climate being
part of it.
Steve Hayes
<Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote:
>Careful when talking about primates - their behavior does not allow the same
>spectrum of variation as human behavior. Just take gorillas for instance. No
>matter whether their habitat offers an abundance or scarcity of food plants,
>they ALWAYS follow the pattern of huge males having a harem of several
>smaller females. They just have no choice about their way of life. Humans
>have.
And there i was thinking that humans *were* primates!
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Tedd Jacobs
"Steve Hayes" wrote...
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 00:06:02 +0100, "Sylvia Knörr"
> <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>>Careful when talking about primates - their behavior does not allow the
>>same
>>spectrum of variation as human behavior. Just take gorillas for instance.
>>No
>>matter whether their habitat offers an abundance or scarcity of food
>>plants,
>>they ALWAYS follow the pattern of huge males having a harem of several
>>smaller females. They just have no choice about their way of life. Humans
>>have.
>
> And there i was thinking that humans *were* primates!
astounding. first i learned 'humans are mammals, not animals' and now
'humans are not primates'. just astounding.
Sylvia Knörr
"Keeping face" is more a demand for people of the SAME society - foreigners
generally are exempted, either because they can't be expected to know the
rules in the first place, or because they are considered as inferior,
culturalwise.
> > Sylvia, the question is, "Why are the Japanese (and most other Asian
> > cultures) 'face' cultures?" rather than being more similar to other
> > cultures of the world."
> I think many cultures, homogenous ones, have rules of etiquitte in their
> culture, norms of behavior, appropriateness of action that involve "not
> shaming yourself" and "not dishonoring yourself" (which is what lose face
> means). When you lose face, you shed bad light on all people related to
> you, your family. This is also very much the case in European societies.
Agreed, every culture has such rules, but obviously the extent of how many
areas of everyday life are regulated, vary from one culture to another. East
Asian cultures seem to have MANY rules, compared with Europeans.
As you insinuated above, it *could* have anything to do with the homogeneity
of a nation. Heterogenous peoples like Americans or Europeans may have
dropped many rules of etiquette because steady influx of immigrants made it
impossible to establish rules on a high level of complexity.
> If you ever saw some show here, one of those talk shows where the
> interviewer had Dr. Mengele's son on, you'd know how this works. What was
> he supposed to do, rebuke his father for some crime the father did during
> wartime - when the son was a baby? Turns out in the end, it was
discovered
> that the son and the family were indeed helping him and they did know
where
> he was. Family loyalty.
>
> People tend to FEEL more kinship with their kin - and those that are most
> like themselves. That's just the way it is and no amount of "teaching" is
> going to change that.
Right, family loyality is an instinct, everyone has it. How a society deals
with it, is another issue. Just think of nepotism - it is only natural to do
favors for your kin. But in many societies today it is illicit behavior,
it's considered "corruption". Again, the extent of tolerated corruption
differs widely among nations.
Sylvia Knörr
"Tedd Jacobs" <TJa...@mail.boisestate.edu> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:dr76l...@enews3.newsguy.com...
Hehe, of course you are both right and I revoce all my allegations about
primates as contradicting humans. Is it okay if I put "apes" in lieu of
"primates"?
Tedd Jacobs
"Sylvia Knörr" wrote...
hominodia, hominidia, homininae, hominini, hylobatidae, ponginae, or panini?
Sylvia Knörr
All of them. Let's have a party. :-)
Tedd Jacobs
then you'd still be talking about humans too. :-P~
(you bring the scotch, but no sharing with the gorillas).
Sylvia Knörr
Uh, those dirty taxonomic tricks! :-(
> (you bring the scotch, but no sharing with the gorillas).
Okay. No alcohol for gorillas and red Indians.
Comm
Lol - uh, humans are primates. I said OTHER primates :) Ther are no apes
have the 3 categories. MONKEYS have them. Apes and humans no, these 3
ecological niches aren't there for apes or humans. They ARE for monkeys.
This was on a scientific show - it's not my theory. Gorillas never have
what was termed "abundance." They roam all the time. They have the alpha
male strategy. Bonobo chimps do not have that. But NO apes have the total
abundance all the time environment. Some monkeys do. Syl - humans, apes,
monkeys are all primates. But apes ain't monkeys. Monkeys have tails.
Apes don't. Heh, we are apes :)
I don't know what you mean by "does not allow the same spectrum of
variation" - what do you mean by that? Their behavior would allow ANYTHING,
given the right circumstances. They do not all behave the same - they have
personalities as differing as humans have. I've seen it. And the funny
thing, a baby chimp old enough to go play on its own, but with mother close
by still, would be readily willing to play with a baby babboon, even hug
each other and play close - but along comes the mother and makes the baby
stop playing with that "other species." LMAO. Seen it. I don't personally
see that BIG a spectum of variation when it comes to human behavior at all.
Ever read Demond Morris? I didn't cuz I know most of what he's all about to
begin with (I get a strange switch of consciousness sometimes where I start
seeing people as apes, literally apes)... Anyway - Ever SEE his books put
to the screen (much more impacting that way)? Now I did watch that, and it
was funny. If not - check it out. The patriarchal set up seems to be
standard - and in the poor countries it's STRONGLY patriarchal - but in
countries where there is SOMETHING ALMOST LIKE the monkey situation, that
abundance thing, there is a strong tendency of the people in that eco niche
to GET more equalitarian when it comes to gender stuff and a lot of other
stuff. They get less patriarchal, less "authority" centered.
I told you - go read that article on that url. The info IS in there. Look
at the "tree charts" and you tell me there is BIG variation in human
behavior? uh, NO, there isn't. There isn't even a BIG variation between
orcas and dolphins, imo, except for the "loner orcas" a little bit different
They are generally pretty similar in behavior. Hmm, I see similarity in
behavior with all mammals even. I really do, come to think of it. They
understand general body language too. EG, snakes DO NOT understand an open
door, arm extended, me trying to tell the snake to "go, get off my front
porch." Mammals WOULD understand that movement. Even wild ones - I
personally know this. But about variations in behavior - I don't see humans
have much variation at all. And it's as if they don't allow THEMSELVES to
have it - or it seems that way.
Hold on. Got any idea how many humans DIED? The survivors adapted. Or
perhaps there was some mutation that got selected in favor of. Like a
mutation for pale skin. Got any idea how many must have died from Ricketts
first? LOTS, I would assume. For instance, in vastly different climates
where smarts are a MUST or you just are too stupid to make it, people start
selecting mates according to how smart they are, how intuitive they are -
instead of how strong they are. That right there would make a BIG change in
a few generations - caused by climate pressures.
Social
> interaction was gradually adjusted to the environment - with climate being
> part of it.
Drastic climate would be MOST of it. The survivors would either start
selecting for different traits - or there'd be a mutation that got selected
in favor of. It would change things. Change whole species, even. Got any
idea how many species died due to climate? 98% of them, LMAO. Cambrian,
then Permian. Dinosaurs even. BIG extinctions - due to BIG climate
changes. Maybe to you average 90 degree weather is not such a big change
when it switches to average 20 degree weather (all farenheit) but that's a
pretty big change.
>
>
Comm
stuff.
"Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:dr3u9n$15d$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
> "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:gPyAf.4225$vU2...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
>> news:dops9f$8s8$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
>
>> Read up on some of the British aristocracy etiquitte - it's not much
>> different from the Japanese. These are all rules for social interaction
>> when the societies are set up like hierarchies. Japan used to be (might
>> still be) and Britain used to be too. In other words, Gentlemen did not
> act
>> like Commoners.
>
> Sure, the rules for the "high society" are generally more strict than for
> commoners. It is also clear that EVERY society has concepts of honor and
> how
> to safe it in everyday interaction. But still I think there are some
> differences in the Eastern ans Western concepts about it. As I understand
> it, a Japananese has not only to care about his or her OWN honor, but also
> has to care about not causing others to lose face.
Same with the Brits. They'd hide away or cover up unruly relatives due to
shame being brought on the family name. And not all "eastern" peoples are
the same at all. In America, I remember "the missing brother or sister"
that "went away on vacation" - it was a defective sibling that they put away
in some home. I remember that! No one wanted to admit the kid was
defective.
Most of my ethnicity is eastern, or at least central Asian. We are NOTHING
LIKE the Japanese. We are a people with almost no concept of shame. Like,
why feel shame? What is shame, anyway? I think I don't know!
But in the west, like with the British, the family name was a BIG deal back
then. Not sure if that still exists - but it might. I know people right
now that are ashamed to admit that they have retarded little brother. Only
the "culture of victimhood" makes some of them admit to it - and that's a
very new thing. It's a PC thing.
> In Europe (and USA, I suppose), if person A is shouting at person B in a
> crowded restaurant, it will be person B to feel embarrassed. In Japan,
> BOTH
> person A AND person B would feel embarrassed.
Depends on the people. Both might be embarassed here. I've seen it. I'm
not embarassed to yell my hubby's name LOUDLY in a big store to find him. I
could care less what anyone thinks. I have never seen ANYONE do that in a
big store. :)
>
>> > For example: male control of the female prudishness is a dominant value
> in
>> > the hot and dry countries of the Middle East,
>
>> That is because the men fear women and the woman's influence on men that
>> tends to make men "lose control." It's also in their Islamic religion.
>
> Yes, it has a lot to do with control of the female family members.
No, you miss my point - and my point is DEEP. It has to do with FEAR of The
Female, Syl. FEAR. And I don't mean just a female, or a woman or female
relations, no no no. I mean THE Female. And it's always sexual - you
notice? I find that SICK, man. Fucking SICK. Even when the males don't
act on it, or do anything like that - the FEAR that some men feel is - it's
so noticeable that you can almost smell it. It's like ego-dick. I can't
explain it any other way. You kinda "get it" or you don't "get it."
>
>> while in the hot and humid
>> > countries of Asia and America the honor of men does NOT depend upon the
>> > sexual behavior of the females the same way.
Let me add something - the Kennedy family (from cold Massachusettes, USA)
locked away one of their female daughters because she was sexually
promiscuous. I think they gave her a lobotomy, too! It was on a
documentary. So oh yes, control of females, especially sexually free ones,
was a BIG deal in the USA among the Anglo type people. BIG deal.
>
>> You mean, not anymore. In ALL patriarchal societies, it was the same
> until
>> people fought the trend and changed it. If by America you include hot
>> and
>> humid Hispanic S. America - then you are very wrong. Machismo IS the
>> dominant culture - and if say if a man wants to dance with a woman - he
> has
>> to ask her husband for permission. In N. America, a man who had a loose
>> wife was shamed and considered a cuckold. It's a British word. Middle
>> English to give you a time period: cokewald - it's from vulgar Latin.
>
> I admit that the climate explanation doesn't hold water, and patriarchal
> societies are the norm. Yet it seems to me that female oppression is
> worst
> among Muslims. In Mexico a man has to ask a woman's husband for his
> permission to dance with his wife, but in Afghanistan a man would better
> not
> even *think* of asking his neighbor for a dance with his wife.
> Why did patriarchal structures did get so EXTREME in some parts of the
> world?
FEAR. Fear of THE Female. FEAR of competition. Consider this - human
sperm has three types: 1. egg seeking, 2. blocking and 3. attack. IF human
females were not evolved to have more than one mate (which causes
diversity) - then why are there 3 types of sperm, specially some males have
MORE blocker/attacking sperm and others have more egg seeking. Promiscuity
is built into our genes. FEAR of biology is what causes men to do shit like
that to women. FEAR. And in some S. American countries, men have been
known to throw lye on their girlfriends (not even their wives!) because of
the chance of them cheating on them. They FEAR women being sexually free -
but the men can have sex with anyone they want. It's male FEAR - and that's
it. There is no other explanation. Men are terrified of competition - you
know, the "DICK THING?" The worst thing you can call an Hispanic is a
maricone or cornudo - both have to do with "some guy fucks his wife." But
of course, if HE fucks 10 women outside of marriage - it's ok. It's fucked
up - and it's a DICK thing. It's all rooted in FEAR. The worst thing a
female can do to a man is REJECT his penis. That is like DAMNATION. Get
it? Maybe you don't - you're a girl. Call a man stupid, call him a retard,
call him ugly, a bum, too cheap - that's ah so - not so bad as an insult.
But say "your dick don't work, you are shit in bed" and HOLY SHIT - it's
damnation. Get it? If a girl can't "try on the shoes to see which ones fit
the best" then the girl has nothing to COMPARE with. Got it? That is at
the ROOT of it, Syl. Guaranteed.
And also, watch out when you say Moslems. My cousins are Moslems. The
girls are as wild and free as me - and so are the guys. They aren't
SEMITES, tho. They are Tatars. I knew Egyptian Moslems at the med school -
and the women were PUSHY and very assertive. So not all Moslems are the
same. I know Moslems from Malay uh.. Malaysia? Malaya? (I never quite get
that one right, he's in our egroup) and from Indonesia. They aren't like
that at all. Perhaps this is not a climate thing specifically, or a
religious thing - but maybe it's heh, RACIAL? I think it is.
>
>> But most Asian societies have martial arts - where aggression is
> controlled
>> and by various means used to wield some lethal blows. Aggression is not
>> tolerated in most civilized societies - and by that I mean the emote
>> reactive type of aggression.
>
> Martial arts are far from being unrestrained aggression, they are
> CULTIVATED
> forms of dealing with aggression, like sports.
No no, I'm not talking about sports competition. I'm talking about the
origin of it, it was not started as some sport. Chinese Kung Fu movies (the
ones shown in Chinatown, like the older ones Shaw Brothers or Golden Harvest
used to make), when they deal with OLD China - the clans and such - they are
historically pretty good when it comes to these clans, warfare, warlords and
types of martial arts - like Ming clans versus the Manchus and etc - stuff
like that. I didn't say martial arts is uncontrolled aggression. But they
started out and were for a LONG time a tool of serious aggression - even
during the Boxer rebellion. Martial arts were secret - certain people (in
clans and in monastaries) knew them - and the other people around did not.
They got power, they ruled over others. These were definitely tools of
aggression and control. Control by force. They were NOT sports! They were
NOT something the public could even know. They were secret. Bruce Lee
changed that - and Mao (the moron) chasing all the martial artists out of
China - he started the whole Kung Fu movie industry since that's what these
people got into. Kung fu is a great weapon against a sword. But not
against a bullet or a bomb :)
> It is true that overt uncontrolled aggression is not tolerated in most
> societies, but the concept about WHAT is considered "aggressiveness",
> differs widely. As well as the idea of retaliation.
Mmm, I disagree. I don't know what idea you have of the Japanese, but their
concepts of retaliation, vendetta and ALL of that - are as strong as the
Tatar ones or the Italian ones. And they can go on for generations and they
are tribal or clan centered. The REASONS for the vendetta with Italians and
Japanese are the same. With Tatars, no, the reasons are different.
Aggressiveness can be when you "get loud" in a public place - I gotta watch
my slang here - your English is not going to catch it, but I don't know how
ELSE to explain it. Like this then:
Waitress brings me the wrong food. I YELL "YOU GOD DAMNED BITCH, BRING ME
THE RIGHT DAMNED DINNER." That is not acceptable. :) Beating up the
waitress is not acceptable either :)
Now, I have seen Japanese, Jews and Italians get as "aggressive" as me in
stores, in public places, when something amiss happens. Maybe the word is
assertive, straight forward, stating their case and NOT settling for
something wrong or some brush off, and even getting a bit loud if they are
given bullshit by the store. But it's a little bit more than just
assertive - it's bordering on aggressive. It's not physical, like violent,
tho. I've seen Anglos and Germans get a lot less aggressive, they seem to
be afraid to be assertive even - but then I've seen them bitch and moan
after they were gone, even days later. I have seen blacks get WAY MORE
aggressive, so much so that everyone stares in shock or gets the hell out of
the way before someone gets killed :)
I don't know where you get these ideas of the Japanese - but there is a LOT
about them and their "face thing" that reminds me of Machismo Hispanic and
old world Italian. Now, I've personally KNOWN quite a few people of these
ethnicities - NOT born in America, known them well enough to hang out, go
out, go dancing, go to dinner with them. They were friends.
>
>> > 'Face cultures' like the Japanese seem to be countries where self
> control
>> > is a high value,
>
>> It used to that way here too, until the 60s turned society on its head.
>> People with no self control used to be considered morons, idiots, or
>> extremely immature, like babies. Someone might tell them to "grow up."
>
> Right, there was a "youth revolution" in the 60ies due to the bigger
> personal autonomy which individuals had gained, until people realized that
> we can't live without rules.
Well, there is a youth revolution going on in Japan too these days - the
kids that stay home with parents and don't want to get married or be
bothered with making babies. Heh. They are into leisure, pleasure, having
fun and making money to have more fun with. The youth revolution of the 60s
in the USA had very little to do with personal autonomy OR individualism. I
never saw people become SO clonelike and non individual before that. Oh,
they had rules - different rules. But they had rules - LOTS of them. They
were also more prone to JUMP on anyone, like little inquisitors, that didn't
CONFORM, heh. They were a LOT more intolerant than their parents. Their
parents tolerated them just fine. They did not tolerat their parents - or
anyone that did not conform to the 60s Frankfurt School PC line of utter
bullshit. Of course, we ethnics were "outside" their little conformity
group - they made allowances for us because we became "extra special people
MORE WORTHY than them" in their own eyes. Yah, I thought they were
demented. And of course, if you were black, you were a god. That was the
60s. Stupid times 100.
>
>> and my personal hypothesis is that it has to do with FAMILY
>> > bondages, because the resonsibility for the family is bigger than the
>> > rights of the individual in those "face cultures".
>
>> Used to be the same way here in America, even when I was a kid. The
>> overturning of that social ideal resulted in a lot of worthless kids that
>> don't do chores and don't feel they have to do anything to get food and
>> shelter from parents. They do NOT help out. They don't feel the need
>> to.
>> They can even be reckless and overall bad kids and parents can't even
>> discipline them.
>
> Why is it so?
Frankfurt School - PC. That is why it is so.
Because children do not NEED their families any longer as
> badly as they needed them in the centuries before, when no governmental
> programs would care for the individual.
Boy, you have that so wrong that it's beyond wrong. Nope - all that gov
program crap is part of the bigger picture. It turned the kids into
demented, worthless morons, it made kids into "kids" way longer than they
should be considered kids - it put the smart ones who get bored to death
with the dumbed down shit in school - put them on ritilin for being fidgety
from boredom - make them into emotional babies in need of protection or made
them into patients. Better still, make up some arbitrary number and make
MORE patients out of healthy people. There you have it. Conspiracy? Maybe.
Kids need their parents - heh, MORE than ever before. If they don't get
their parents, they get pimps that beat the shit out of them and make them
whore for money that the pimps take. In the past, "kids" 16 years of age
were adults, they sailed ships, they owned companies, and so forth. They
weren't babies. "Kids" 12 years old got married and were mothers. You are
wrong. There was no such thing as a "teenager." There was a baby, a
child and then an adult. A 9 year old boy that couldn't work, learn skills,
think for himself, was considered retarded - and families just MIGHT kick
such a boy out on the street. On the street, that boy either survived or he
died. That simple. People have gotten stupider, more unable to think for
themselves, more unaware and more worthless. If anything, they NEED their
parents a lot more now then they ever did in the past. In fact, even the
damned laws MAKE IT so that kids NEED their parents until they are 18. That
never used to be the case. Not anywhere. And today, a person 16 is a kid.
In the past a girl 12 years of age was a woman - of marriagable age. A boy
of 12 was a man. They did not need their parents or anyone else if they
went off on their own. did you know that Temujin (Jenghis Khan) had his
army when he was 9? He was a man. Mohammed's wife Ayesha was 9 when he
married her. She was a woman. IF she bleeds, she breeds. She's a woman -
not a kid. Today? people are "children" until they are 18 - and that is
PATHETIC. It's emotional retardation. Kids need their parents MORE than
ever before.
> That still doesn't explain the differences of family bondages between
> Western and Asian societies.
I don't see much difference in western and Asian societies since not all
western societies are the same - and not all Asian ones are the same. My
people are very aloof. We don't "keep in touch" just to talk about nothing
or the weather. We just don't. We also do not EVER interfere in the lives
of relatives. You're asking for trouble if you do it. When and if we DO
run into each other - you'd think the last time we saw each other was
yesterday, not 20 years ago. It's as if there is no conception of TIME
passing. It's a kind of nomadic thing, I guess, it's pretty innate. I have
it - and I'm Americanized. I don't miss people. I mean, as I said to one
guy that said he lost his kids due to divorce and he was in tears, he LOST
his kids. I said - you didn't LOSE anything. The kids are there - they are
ALIVE; they ain't dead! They are somewhere on this planet and you KNOW that.
They see the same sun and moon that you see. You'll see them again, maybe -
maybe when they are adults. They aren't lost. He never thought of that in
that way at all. But this guy was Welsh - and that's western. I guess to
him the kids had to be THERE, within sight. For me - no - they are alive,
on the planet somewhere. They are HERE. Not lost. He even knows WHERE
they are and who they are with! I mean, he knows they are SAFE. So?
What's to cry about? I'm Tatar - and that's Asian.
So I think you have a wrong premise here. I think you are generalizing and
making a lot of assumptions based on stereotypes. MANY Japanese do not have
the face thing. MANY British people DO have the face thing - and so do
Irish people. MANY Italians have it. Some don't have it at all. The
example you gave of the oldest child becoming a kind of parent to the
younger ones can be seen in many European countries - and in the USA,
especially in a one parent home. Heh, Jackals do that, you know :)
Some Germans that I meet remind me of Italians - they are TOO close to their
families, too involved in all kinds of shit - and nothing but trouble comes
of it too many times. Like, they are into INTERFEREING and no one has the
balls to say "fuck off and GET OUT of our lives" to them. But it's obvious
that they WANT to say it! It's cloying. And some Germans I meet are more
like me - they are aloof - their kids have flown from the nest and that's
that, they are on their own, they have their own lives now and what they are
doing is none of anyone's business! And now, these parents have raised
kids, worked all their lives and now it's THEIR TIME to have leisure and no
more responsibility.
Rarely do I run into an Italian like that, aloof like that - or an Hispanic
like that. But I notice that Italians (I mean from Italy, but American
citizens) are more likely to ask questions that, if I didn't know the
person, I'd say they were very intrusive questions that are none of her
damned business. Personal questions. I told her this too - that
culturally, asking questions like that is NOT acceptable. She knew that
some people take that the wrong way. (So why does she do it? Heh, she does
it cuz she is ITALIAN!) I do notice that I never called her again to go
visiting, tho. :) Heh. I kinda forgot she existed until right now! But I
have run into quite a few Japanese people that are as aloof as I am. I've
run into Chinese people like that too, aloof - lots of them. Then again, I
also ran into the old style Chinese who had an arranged marriage - and she
hated the guy and did NOT want to be with him. She loved someone else.
The other person she loved was Chinese - he had no idea WHY she just didn't
walk away from the arrangement and tell them all to fuck off. Both of these
people were Chinese. Big difference between them. Perhaps there was a lot
more to the situation than anyone knew, including the Chinese guy that she
did love. Who knows.
But I've met both types in Chinese and Japanese people. I rarely meet the
"uninvolved with the whole family thing" in Italians and Hispanics. They
are, imo, WAY TOO involved. All entangled, always interfering. Seems like a
royal pain in the ass, to me. But then, I'm from a culture that is VERY
aloof. Nomadic. And yeah, as Americanized as I am, I'm that way too -
which leads me to think this is innate. There is a kind of innate feeling
of "boundaries" - and when these are being breached, it is keenly felt. As
I said, if I didn't know Italian almost-friend didn't mean anything wrong by
it, I'd have told that Italian almost-friend, "What is that to you - WHY do
you want to know?" She had to have noticed that I did not ask HER any
questions like that at all. People do tend to notice what IS said and what
is NOT said - even if they notice it unconsciously. A person asking
questions like that sounds like "the 3rd degree" - like a cop grilling you
for personal information. ! It FEELS like that. I have no idea what it
feels like to HER - for a person to NOT ask any questions like that! I have
no idea. I have never met an Asian person that ever asked me things like
that. Blacks don't ask that stuff either - unless they know me a long time
and it's chit chat like on a job.
>
>
Comm
>
> "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:gPyAf.4224$vU2...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> nice to Koreans - and American citizens that were of Japanese and Black
>> parentage had quite a bit to say about what they experienced in Japan.
> They
>> were disliked - and openly so.
>
> "Keeping face" is more a demand for people of the SAME society -
> foreigners
> generally are exempted, either because they can't be expected to know the
> rules in the first place, or because they are considered as inferior,
> culturalwise.
Uh, the Japanese have a keen concept of others being inferior - RACIALLY -
and some of them have openly said it - like one that said it to one of the
American presidents "they might be YOUR equals, but they are not OUR
equals" - he was talking about race - and he was either the ruler or high up
leader in Japan back then. I'm bad with details of who said it and when
exactly. Not all Japanese have the face thing - and not all have it to the
same extent if they do have it. And I will also say that the Chinese are
probably the MOST racist people I ever met in my life. One guy, a friend
that hung out with us - he was from mainland China - spoke damned good
English - he was a university student. If a person was Persian even, he'd
not even speak to that person. !! He outright said that he did not regard
certain groups of people as human beings. Humans, he said, were Jews, some
Asians and Whites. LMAO. And he was from COMMUNIST CHINA! I was kinda
speechless! I'll tell you, the subject was NOT up for discussion. He said
what he said - turned his face up and away and that was the END of that
subject.
>
>> > Sylvia, the question is, "Why are the Japanese (and most other Asian
>> > cultures) 'face' cultures?" rather than being more similar to other
>> > cultures of the world."
>
>> I think many cultures, homogenous ones, have rules of etiquitte in their
>> culture, norms of behavior, appropriateness of action that involve "not
>> shaming yourself" and "not dishonoring yourself" (which is what lose face
>> means). When you lose face, you shed bad light on all people related to
>> you, your family. This is also very much the case in European societies.
>
> Agreed, every culture has such rules, but obviously the extent of how many
> areas of everyday life are regulated, vary from one culture to another.
> East
> Asian cultures seem to have MANY rules, compared with Europeans.
> As you insinuated above, it *could* have anything to do with the
> homogeneity
> of a nation. Heterogenous peoples like Americans or Europeans may have
> dropped many rules of etiquette because steady influx of immigrants made
> it
> impossible to establish rules on a high level of complexity.
Again, it depends on which Asian culture. And it depends on WHICH
Americans. Some of them have not dropped rules of etiquette at all. Some
seem to have never had it. It depends, it really depends. In the USA -
there is this dynamic with white people like the wasps - the New England or
North East dynamic and the Wild West dynamic. The two are VERY different.
The wild west ones are a lot more nomadic, laid back, very up front. The
whole situation in the wild west is VERY similar to the Tatar situation,
gunslingers, outlaws, bandits, cowboys, all of that, cattle wars with sod
busters (agrarian people), mountain men, hillbillies - all of it. Heh, God
Guns and Guts! My whole family used to watch westerns (shows and movies)
because they could RELATE to all of that. Everyone was in front of the TV,
eg, when Gunsmoke came on. That's an example of wide wild open spaces
making the same types of people. There was a LOT of lawlessness compared to
today's standards, and common law was there. Like, the concepts of wild
west justice are things I can personally relate to 100%. I can NOT relate
to the northeastern concepts at all - and imo, anyone in favor of gun
control needs to have their brain rearranged. So you are really
generalizing here. I could never relate to the etiquette of the New England
or North East area - even tho I grew up there. You can sort of see that
right now - with blue states and red states! It's like the USA is two
nations. Really. Always was the case too. It's not just north versus
south either. The southern plantation types were not much differnt from the
northeasterners in terms of etiquette. But both are NOT like the wild west
types.
And then there are the blacks - they are sort of another nation even tho
they are all over the place. They ACT LIKE they are a nation - and they are
the most race conscious people I EVER met in my life. Their etiquette - or
rules of behavior, are kind of at odds with EVERYONE else's. They say it
"act black, versus act white." It doesn't matter if the person is Chinese
or Japanese - they "act white" too. They don't "act black." "Black it up"
means to BE black in speech, behavior, body language, gesture, all of that.
Everyone in the USA knows what this is. I guess you don't! There are some
whites that adopt the "act black" and they are called "wiggers." They do
NOT mean "act like Clarence Thomas."
So what you are saying is way too general - more like what a total outsider
who never met and hung out, really hung out as friends, with any of these
people might think or say. People don't lose etiquette. They just replace
the old one with another one - or retain the old one. Goth culture has
adopted an entirely new etiquette - and that culture is I think 100% white.
They maintain a very white skin, usually dye their hair jet black - they
kinda look like vampires. Don Henry or Henri is Goth - look him up. (He's
also CUTE). Oh, and btw, those 60s hippies are today some of the most
control-freak repressive parents - I'm not surprised.
>
>> If you ever saw some show here, one of those talk shows where the
>> interviewer had Dr. Mengele's son on, you'd know how this works. What
>> was
>> he supposed to do, rebuke his father for some crime the father did during
>> wartime - when the son was a baby? Turns out in the end, it was
> discovered
>> that the son and the family were indeed helping him and they did know
> where
>> he was. Family loyalty.
>>
>> People tend to FEEL more kinship with their kin - and those that are most
>> like themselves. That's just the way it is and no amount of "teaching"
>> is
>> going to change that.
>
> Right, family loyality is an instinct, everyone has it. How a society
> deals
> with it, is another issue. Just think of nepotism - it is only natural to
> do
> favors for your kin. But in many societies today it is illicit behavior,
> it's considered "corruption".
No, it's not considered that by the society at all. That's what I mean, you
seem as if you never really met and got to really know people here. The
whole nepotism thing is just a LAW. It's a LAW that liberals put on the
books to force companies to hire people they really didn't want to hire.
Keep in mind that the concept of a "right to work" state didn't even exist
back then. I live in a right to work state. That's VERY bad for unions.
But it's TOPS for making dog eat dog competition! And if you can't do the
job - heh, you get weeded out and go stone broke - NO unemployment for an
independent, either! NOTHING. It's pure social darwinism, sort of. A
unionized regular employee might do a really shitty job - and he'd not lose
his job! This is NOT the case with independents. And independents are so
ubiquitous here, and growing, that they are putting regular companies out of
business. They can make MONEY - and still do the jobs for 1/3 the cost or
even less - a LOT less.
Where I live, independent contractors are BIG time here. Everyone has many
cousins :) Hire a person for pressure cleaning and he finds out you want
the place painted - oh, he has a cousin who is a painter. And his other
cousin is a plumber. His uncle is a cabinet builder - and so on. Nepotism
reigns supreme here. And even if the person is NOT a cousin at all - the
person is of the same ethnic group or race. You see? That person can PASS
as a cousin or brother. No one asks questions. That would be intruding.
Again, the extent of tolerated corruption
> differs widely among nations.
It is only considered corruption by the PC law makers. What you are saying
is 100% out of touch with the real people here. NO ONE considers it
corruption - they DO IT if they can get away with it - and here they surely
CAN get away with it because independent contractors can hire who the hell
they want. They are INDEPENDENT! They aren't companies that have to
insure full time workers or anything like that. They often have NO
overhead. They can arrange deals with what they'll pay anyone they hire out
to. Usually - CASH.
OR - they do this other thing in non-independent contractor situations, in
regular companies: you apply for a job, say, med transcriber. All of these
jobs are PT jobs. They have shifts. A person already "in" working there
will all of a sudden NEED that shift for overtime - so she is working 2
shifts now - and waiting until her friend applies and gets the job. Happens
everyday here. This is a right to work state, btw. It's not like the rest
of the USA.
Independent contractors can hire ANYONE they want - and they AND the regular
companies here can fire you WITH NO CAUSE. Independents have a LOT more
freedom in who they hire out than companies do. See, you hire THEM - and
then THEY hire out - usually their cousins or family or kids! I had to hire
a sprinkler guy to do some work I could not do - find a leak, dig up a HEAP
of stuff under concrete, put in pipes, etc. So I hired Orlando. He's a
citizen, Puerto Rican guy originally from New York, he works on big golf
courses - so that means these BIG resorts hire independents! Well, I hired
HIM. Who HE hires to help him is his business. I saw what looked to me
like 9 and 10 year old kids doing some of that work. Maybe they were just
very short? They were all Hispanics - they couldn't speak a word of
English, either. You see? Who are they? I asked. He said, "OH, they are
MY COUSINS, they are just visiting me and want to help." See? Well, they
didn't look anything like each other or like Orlando - and since when do
Puerto Ricans NOT speak a word of English? Heh. I have no LEGAL right to
ask them for ID, btw. Orlando is licensed, a real contractor. That's the
way it is.
The point I wish to make here also now, is that those "kids" were not kids.
They were willing and VERY QUALIFIED to do this kind of work. And so was I
when I was that age. I know how to do it, I am no longer physically able to
do it. Are any American kids qualified to do it? Ha ha ha. No, they are
worthless.
What I notice here - and the black guy down the street noticed it too when
he asked me if I knew how to do plumbing. Yeah, I know how - but I'm not
physically able to do it. And if I tell him how - and IF something breaks -
insurance won't pay for it unless a LICENCED plumber did the work. So I
gave him a name of an independent that does good work for cheap. But the
guy I referred him to barely speaks English. Black guy said that the
problem is so many of these people are Hispanic and don't speak English -
and it's hard to find someone that can do a good job like that. Well - heh,
there are the NON-independent contractors companies (mostly white guys) and
they are EXPENSIVE, and then there is this black guy handyman from England
who probably has other blacks working for him (tho his electrician is
Hispanic...). So you see - nepotism and hiring out to your own
ethnic/racial brothers goes on BIG time here. And since this is a right to
work state? Heh. NO ONE regards it as corruption.
I think there is a LOT LOT LOT you are taking for granted about what people
think, what they feel, what they do - that is really way off base and wrong.
People hiring their family used to be expected, even the norm - until the PC
liberal legislators whined about it on behalf of people that no one wanted
to hire. And then again, are ALL those people REALLY cousins? Probably
not - but they are the same race/ethnic group. See what I mean? When my
best handyman friend was fixing up a rental for me - he was paid cash for
stuff - and of course, if anyone else asked, HE IS my cousin, it's family.
Now do you see? And seriously, when you can get a job done, and done really
well for $650 that would normally cost $5000 (I kid you NOT) if a company
like Sears did it - who are you gonna hire? I'm gonna hire my "cousin" even
tho I just met my new cousin yesterday, LMAO. And there is not a damned
thing against the law about it - and not a damned thing anyone can DO about
it. So - NO ONE regards it as corruption. It's expected. Big companies
hire independents, too. They pay the ONE guy, just like I paid Orlando.
How he pays anyone else is his business - NOT mine. You can get the whole
inside of a house painted by independents for about 600 bucks - at most 1200
if the painting includes the molding, doors, all that in some other color.
It all depends. But YOU move the furniture and take everything down - and
then put it all back. YOU also buy the paint. That's how that goes.
Whereas if you hire a contract painter from some company - it's going to be
a LOT more money, maybe $4000 or more, and they get the paint, move the
furniture, all of that - they do the WHOLE job. There is also bartering
with independents. You do this job and I'll give you a beautiful solid real
wood table - mahogany. Done deal. It cost me under 100 bucks to make that
table. Bartering. A person who has no idea how to do stuff like that, has
nothing to barter with. You can not buy that kind of table for $100. No
way. Tables in stores cost 4 times that, and they are shit chip board
garbage maybe with a formica top. So a person that BOUGHT a solid wood
table would be an idiot to barter it. Get how I mean? It's wild economy
down here - and MANY minimum wage jobs.
>
>
>
>
>
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch
Take a few weeks off and have a thread taken over by the briganti.
Now, where were we?
"Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:dppnsd$ono$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
> "Aardvark J. Bandersnatch" <some...@microslinux.com> schrieb im
> Newsbeitrag news:MxUtf.664167$x96.545558@attbi_s72...
>
>> Quite some years ago there was a sociological study correlating the
>> population trends of a culture and its relationship towards tradition,
>> social conditions, or personal endeavor. Basically, a stable society with
> an
>> increasing population tends to look more like modern American society;
>> stable societies with stable populations tend to look much like European
>> social culture; stable societies that "get by" (a stable population that
>> could fall into horrid famine at any minute) tended to look more like
> Asian
>> cultures. The latter groups tended to be very tradition-oriented, tended
> to
>> place great value on personal status (cast-oriented), and tended towards
>> strict adherence to social norms and mores.
>
> These correlations immediately make some sense to me, and also immediatly
> the question about "which is hen and which is egg?" rises.
> Does the attitude of a society towards traditions etc cause the particular
> prosperity and stability, or is it vice versa, that a certain level of
> prosperity and stability leads to certain traditions?
If one relates this to reproductive trends, the data makes more sense.
"Wenn" a population is quite stable for long enough, then the majority of
that population come to realize (especially subconsciously) that the
individual genetic heritage will continue; in that case, there will be no
urgency to bear more than sufficient children to continue the line. With
that kind of "thinking" going on, there comes concommitant the unconscious
social desire to have just exactly this set of conditions continue into the
foreseeable future. Thus a large, but stable population would lend itself
toward tradition-oriented culture. It is similarly possible to connect other
population-culture trends to reproductive access, success rates, and
relative security (of reproduction and continuance).
>
Oh yes! David Riesman! That's whom I was thinking of.
http://www.asanet.org/footnotes/mayjun02/indextwo.html
>
>> I tend to be suspicious of climatological explanations because there
>> isn't
> a
>> very high degree of correlation or consistence. EVen beyond that, we need
> to
>> look for the biological bases that drive these trends.
>
> Climatological conditions may not have a monocausal effect on human
> societies, but climate is surely linked with human societies because it
> provides some basic conditions, like landscape. Climate makes a difference
> on how harsh or comfortable life can be, and climate does not permit the
> same levels of competiton, cooperation or individual autonomity in every
> place.
> Effects may be blurred since humans moved around a lot, and a society may
> live far from its place of origin today, so their traditions were shaped
> in
> a different climate.
A most excellent point, Sylvia. Climate does make *A* difference, but may
not necessarily be *THE* difference.* Then again, cultures, like weather,
are vastly complex phenomena with several hundreds of possible causal agents
and agencies.
* How do peoples without definite/indefinite articles in their languages
make explicit the difference between "a" and "the"?
A bit late, but Happy Groundhog Day!
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch
"Tedd Jacobs" <TJa...@mail.boisestate.edu> wrote in message
news:dr9gi...@enews3.newsguy.com...
>
>>
>> Hehe, of course you are both right and I revoce all my allegations about
>> primates as contradicting humans. Is it okay if I put "apes" in lieu of
>> "primates"?
>
> hominodia, hominidia, homininae, hominini, hylobatidae, ponginae, or
> panini?
You say hominodia, I say homininae,
You say ponginae, I say paniniae,
Let's call the whole thing off.
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch
>
>> (you bring the scotch, but no sharing with the gorillas).
>
> Okay. No alcohol for gorillas and red Indians.
What about the light-brown Indians?
>
>
Sylvia Knörr
> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:dr6but$psg$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
> > "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:CVyAf.4226$vU2...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >> The levels of prosperity and stability lead to certain traditions.
Heh, yes, some other posters already made me aware of this fact. <ashamed
for that lapsus>
> I don't know what you mean by "does not allow the same spectrum of
> variation" - what do you mean by that? Their behavior would allow
ANYTHING,
> given the right circumstances.
What I mean is that humans have much more options than the OTHER primates
about which way they live. We can choose monogamy, polygamy, polyandry and
variations in between, and we can switch from a polygamic society to a
monogamic one if we want to. Other primates are much more limited. I think
there is no such thing as a horde of chimps all practising monogamy, because
it's simply outside their nature.
They do not all behave the same - they have
> personalities as differing as humans have. I've seen it. And the funny
> thing, a baby chimp old enough to go play on its own, but with mother
close
> by still, would be readily willing to play with a baby babboon, even hug
> each other and play close - but along comes the mother and makes the baby
> stop playing with that "other species." LMAO. Seen it. I don't
personally
> see that BIG a spectum of variation when it comes to human behavior at
all.
I never denied that all primates (even all mammals) have a LOT in common!
> Ever read Demond Morris? I didn't cuz I know most of what he's all about
to
> begin with (I get a strange switch of consciousness sometimes where I
start
> seeing people as apes, literally apes)... Anyway - Ever SEE his books put
> to the screen (much more impacting that way)? Now I did watch that, and
it
> was funny. If not - check it out. The patriarchal set up seems to be
> standard - and in the poor countries it's STRONGLY patriarchal - but in
> countries where there is SOMETHING ALMOST LIKE the monkey situation, that
> abundance thing, there is a strong tendency of the people in that eco
niche
> to GET more equalitarian when it comes to gender stuff and a lot of other
> stuff. They get less patriarchal, less "authority" centered.
Yes, I read "The Naked Ape" and found it quite convincing on large parts.
Still I think that humans are unique with the variety of options we have -
in spite of the limitating factors of our surrounding.
> I told you - go read that article on that url. The info IS in there.
I've read it.
Look
> at the "tree charts" and you tell me there is BIG variation in human
> behavior? uh, NO, there isn't. There isn't even a BIG variation between
> orcas and dolphins, imo, except for the "loner orcas" a little bit
different
> They are generally pretty similar in behavior.
Maybe we got different concepts of what we consider a *BIG* variation?
Hmm, I see similarity in
> behavior with all mammals even. I really do, come to think of it. They
> understand general body language too. EG, snakes DO NOT understand an
open
> door, arm extended, me trying to tell the snake to "go, get off my front
> porch." Mammals WOULD understand that movement. Even wild ones - I
> personally know this. But about variations in behavior - I don't see
humans
> have much variation at all. And it's as if they don't allow THEMSELVES to
> have it - or it seems that way.
That humans have more in common with fellow mammals than with different
classes of animals is understood, it's also in the number of genes we share
with them.
> >> IF climate were the explanation, then a change of climate would produce
a
> >> change of social strategies. This doesn't seem to be the case - unless
> >> no one is alive long enough to witness it happening.
> > Like I said before, climate may not be *THE* explanation, but it is part
> > of it. Since climate usually does not change dramatically within a
lifetime
> > (given that human kind evolved long before the age of rapid global
> > migration
> > movements), humans had time to adapt as they roamed within an area.
> Hold on. Got any idea how many humans DIED? The survivors adapted.
Sure, that is a fact for ALL recent living beings - the ones which are NOW
alive are just the end products of a long chain of survivers. They survived
due to adaption. The ones who died? forget them, they were evolutional dead
end streets anyway.
> Or perhaps there was some mutation that got selected in favor of. Like a
> mutation for pale skin. Got any idea how many must have died from
Ricketts
> first? LOTS, I would assume. For instance, in vastly different climates
> where smarts are a MUST or you just are too stupid to make it, people
start
> selecting mates according to how smart they are, how intuitive they are -
> instead of how strong they are. That right there would make a BIG change
in
> a few generations - caused by climate pressures.
Being cuter than other apes was *our* biological niche, and it's perfectly
clear that cuteness is a huge evolutionary advantage for humans. Also a big
deal for sexual selection - as far as I know, cuteness is more important to
women when they choose a partner (given that they have a choice in the first
place). For men, cuteness may not be *the* most important trait of a
potential mate, but they mostly like a partner with a similar level of
intelligence.
> Social
> > interaction was gradually adjusted to the environment - with climate
being
> > part of it.
> Drastic climate would be MOST of it. The survivors would either start
> selecting for different traits - or there'd be a mutation that got
selected
> in favor of. It would change things. Change whole species, even. Got
any
> idea how many species died due to climate? 98% of them, LMAO. Cambrian,
> then Permian. Dinosaurs even. BIG extinctions - due to BIG climate
> changes. Maybe to you average 90 degree weather is not such a big change
> when it switches to average 20 degree weather (all farenheit) but that's a
> pretty big change.
Right, 98% of all species which ever existed are now extinct. Your and my
ancestors survived. They didn't have to deal with a different climate every
year - I suppose, sometimes over many generations they lived in a stable
environment and their social life was shaped by the conditions which ruled
them over a long period. That's how we arrived at different ethnicities. Of
course sometimes all could change within just one lifetime by a major
desaster. It's punctuated equilibrium.
Sylvia Knörr
> Take a few weeks off and have a thread taken over by the briganti.
It's called "freedom of speech". :-)
> Now, where were we?
Like the Japanese?
> It is similarly possible to connect other
> population-culture trends to reproductive access, success rates, and
> relative security (of reproduction and continuance).
Also it seems that only a relatively safe and prosperous environment can
really effectively curb excessive population growth. Looks like a
self-intensifying circle!
> Oh yes! David Riesman! That's whom I was thinking of.
>
> http://www.asanet.org/footnotes/mayjun02/indextwo.html
Ah, you remembered who it was. Good thing, thanks! It feels good to have a
reliable memory, doesn't it? :-)
> >> I tend to be suspicious of climatological explanations because there
isn't a
> >> very high degree of correlation or consistence. EVen beyond that, we
need
> >> to look for the biological bases that drive these trends.
> > Climatological conditions may not have a monocausal effect on human
> > societies, but climate is surely linked with human societies because it
> > provides some basic conditions, like landscape. Climate makes a
difference
> > on how harsh or comfortable life can be, and climate does not permit the
> > same levels of competiton, cooperation or individual autonomity in every
> > place.
> > Effects may be blurred since humans moved around a lot, and a society
may
> > live far from its place of origin today, so their traditions were shaped
> > in a different climate.
> A most excellent point, Sylvia. Climate does make *A* difference, but may
> not necessarily be *THE* difference.* Then again, cultures, like weather,
> are vastly complex phenomena with several hundreds of possible causal
agents
> and agencies.
Exactly my point. That's why monocausal explanations mostly lead us nowhere,
but we can detect some PATTERNS. That may not satisfy the creationists, but
it's still better than nothing! :-))
> * How do peoples without definite/indefinite articles in their languages
> make explicit the difference between "a" and "the"?
Emphasis markers?
> A bit late, but Happy Groundhog Day!
Thanks, it's an old German superstition that if the badger can see his
shadow at Maria Lichtmess (what's that in English?), then winter will linger
for 6 more weeks. This year, the badger saw his shadow. :-(
I hope you had better luck with Phil in Punxsutawney! :-)
Sylvia Knörr
Every society has its issues of shame, but we call only some of the Oriental
ones "Face cultures". I suppose they have some traits which the others have
not.
> Most of my ethnicity is eastern, or at least central Asian. We are
NOTHING
> LIKE the Japanese. We are a people with almost no concept of shame.
Like,
> why feel shame? What is shame, anyway? I think I don't know!
To call all Asian societies "Face cultures" doubtlessly is an
overgeneralization, seen from the Western angle.
> But in the west, like with the British, the family name was a BIG deal
back
> then. Not sure if that still exists - but it might. I know people right
> now that are ashamed to admit that they have retarded little brother.
Only
> the "culture of victimhood" makes some of them admit to it - and that's a
> very new thing. It's a PC thing.
Agreed, like many other PC phenomena it is a pretty new thing.
> > In Europe (and USA, I suppose), if person A is shouting at person B in a
> > crowded restaurant, it will be person B to feel embarrassed. In Japan,
> > BOTH person A AND person B would feel embarrassed.
> Depends on the people. Both might be embarassed here. I've seen it. I'm
> not embarassed to yell my hubby's name LOUDLY in a big store to find him.
I
> could care less what anyone thinks. I have never seen ANYONE do that in a
> big store. :)
To call someone's name aloud to find him is not what I was talking about. I
meant shouting in a quarrel.
The same goes for criticizing someone in public (at work, for instance).
Nobody loves to be criticized, but in Japan or the Philippines it is an
OFFENCE to do so, so people rather give SIGNALS of disapproval. It's the
source of business misunderstandings also.
> >> > For example: male control of the female prudishness is a dominant
value
> >> > in the hot and dry countries of the Middle East,
> >> That is because the men fear women and the woman's influence on men
that
> >> tends to make men "lose control." It's also in their Islamic religion.
> > Yes, it has a lot to do with control of the female family members.
> No, you miss my point - and my point is DEEP. It has to do with FEAR of
The
> Female, Syl. FEAR. And I don't mean just a female, or a woman or
female
> relations, no no no. I mean THE Female. And it's always sexual - you
> notice? I find that SICK, man. Fucking SICK. Even when the males don't
> act on it, or do anything like that - the FEAR that some men feel is -
it's
> so noticeable that you can almost smell it. It's like ego-dick. I can't
> explain it any other way. You kinda "get it" or you don't "get it."
I think I know what you mean, but this doesn't contradict my point of view.
The incentive may be FEAR of the Female, but the consequence is the pursuit
of control over them. Control reduces fear.
> > I admit that the climate explanation doesn't hold water, and patriarchal
> > societies are the norm. Yet it seems to me that female oppression is
worst
> > among Muslims. In Mexico a man has to ask a woman's husband for his
> > permission to dance with his wife, but in Afghanistan a man would better
> > not even *think* of asking his neighbor for a dance with his wife.
> > Why did patriarchal structures did get so EXTREME in some parts of the
> > world?
> FEAR. Fear of THE Female. FEAR of competition. Consider this - human
> sperm has three types: 1. egg seeking, 2. blocking and 3. attack. IF
human
> females were not evolved to have more than one mate (which causes
> diversity) - then why are there 3 types of sperm, specially some males
have
> MORE blocker/attacking sperm and others have more egg seeking.
Never heard about that sperm type theory. But if all men have all 3 types
(albeit in different percentages) - what difference would it make? Male
competiton remains the same.
No doubt, the penis is sacred to most men, but that's only natural, since
it's the instrument to provide HIS genes a place in the next generation.
However, we females are also interested to bring on our genes (have babies),
but our problem is to find GOOD spouses to support our babies - lazy bums we
can have for free all the time!
This way, for females it is most important to have the freedom of choice,
and that's why I wonder why women could let happen such things like in Saudi
Arabia or Afghanistan where women have practically no say of who will be the
father of their babies.
> And also, watch out when you say Moslems. My cousins are Moslems. The
> girls are as wild and free as me - and so are the guys. They aren't
> SEMITES, tho. They are Tatars. I knew Egyptian Moslems at the med
school -
> and the women were PUSHY and very assertive. So not all Moslems are the
> same. I know Moslems from Malay uh.. Malaysia? Malaya? (I never quite
get
> that one right, he's in our egroup) and from Indonesia. They aren't like
> that at all. Perhaps this is not a climate thing specifically, or a
> religious thing - but maybe it's heh, RACIAL? I think it is.
Yes, Moslems are not all the same, but I do some generalizing because most
of us will share a common idea of a "typical" Moslem.
Okay, martial arts originally were effective war techniques, but times have
changed and today they have a more sportive or folkloristic character.
> > It is true that overt uncontrolled aggression is not tolerated in most
> > societies, but the concept about WHAT is considered "aggressiveness",
> > differs widely. As well as the idea of retaliation.
> Mmm, I disagree. I don't know what idea you have of the Japanese, but
their
> concepts of retaliation, vendetta and ALL of that - are as strong as the
> Tatar ones or the Italian ones. And they can go on for generations and
they
> are tribal or clan centered. The REASONS for the vendetta with Italians
and
> Japanese are the same. With Tatars, no, the reasons are different.
> Aggressiveness can be when you "get loud" in a public place - I gotta
watch
> my slang here - your English is not going to catch it, but I don't know
how
> ELSE to explain it. Like this then:
Ah, I should be more precise. Every society has to deal with aggressions and
feelings of retaliation. Yet there are different ways to express it, and
different ideas about what are adequate ways to deal with it. Let me put it
this way: A German, if offended, might slap the offender's face publicly
right on the spot. A Japanese might slap the offender's face too, but he
will prefer to do it behind closed doors.
> >> > 'Face cultures' like the Japanese seem to be countries where self
> >> > control is a high value,
> >> It used to that way here too, until the 60s turned society on its head.
> >> People with no self control used to be considered morons, idiots, or
> >> extremely immature, like babies. Someone might tell them to "grow up."
> > Right, there was a "youth revolution" in the 60ies due to the bigger
> > personal autonomy which individuals had gained, until people realized
that
> > we can't live without rules.
> Well, there is a youth revolution going on in Japan too these days - the
> kids that stay home with parents and don't want to get married or be
> bothered with making babies. Heh. They are into leisure, pleasure,
having
> fun and making money to have more fun with. The youth revolution of the
60s
> in the USA had very little to do with personal autonomy OR individualism.
I meant autonomy in an economical sense - due to increased wealth in the
USA, the kids didn't have the necessity to work as soon as they could.
> I never saw people become SO clonelike and non individual before that.
Oh,
> they had rules - different rules. But they had rules - LOTS of them.
They
> were also more prone to JUMP on anyone, like little inquisitors, that
didn't
> CONFORM, heh. They were a LOT more intolerant than their parents. Their
> parents tolerated them just fine. They did not tolerat their parents - or
> anyone that did not conform to the 60s Frankfurt School PC line of utter
> bullshit. Of course, we ethnics were "outside" their little conformity
> group - they made allowances for us because we became "extra special
people
> MORE WORTHY than them" in their own eyes. Yah, I thought they were
> demented. And of course, if you were black, you were a god. That was
the
> 60s. Stupid times 100.
The 60ies produced a lot of stupid things, but I don't see it all negative.
Of course, things in Germany were different from what happened in the USA.
> > Why is it so?
Seems we missed each others point. Yes, the kids of the 60ies were somehow
"leeches" on their parents' purse, but by that they had greater freedoms to
choose what they wanted to do - unlike kids of former generations .
Maybe the fact that your ancestors lived scattered in a wide area for many
generations brought out that trait of aloofness.
> So I think you have a wrong premise here. I think you are generalizing
and
> making a lot of assumptions based on stereotypes. MANY Japanese do not
have
> the face thing. MANY British people DO have the face thing - and so do
> Irish people. MANY Italians have it. Some don't have it at all. The
> example you gave of the oldest child becoming a kind of parent to the
> younger ones can be seen in many European countries - and in the USA,
> especially in a one parent home. Heh, Jackals do that, you know :)
I admit that I am generalizing, but hey - there *ARE* some national,
cultural and ethnic differences, or not? :-)
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch
>
> "Aardvark J. Bandersnatch" <some...@microslinux.com> schrieb im
> Newsbeitrag news:yO1Ff.746450$x96.673584@attbi_s72...
>
>> Take a few weeks off and have a thread taken over by the briganti.
>
> It's called "freedom of speech". :-)
>
>> Now, where were we?
After looking at how long that post was, I'm glad we're not charged by the
syllable.
Comm
"Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:dse5r1$bss$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
Uh, heh, it only means that white people CALL some Asian cultures face
cultures and see them that way - apparently they are incapable of seeing
THEMSELVES as face cultures. I sure can see it. They hide their faces in
shame, heh, LOTS of times.
>
>> Most of my ethnicity is eastern, or at least central Asian. We are
> NOTHING
>> LIKE the Japanese. We are a people with almost no concept of shame.
> Like,
>> why feel shame? What is shame, anyway? I think I don't know!
>
> To call all Asian societies "Face cultures" doubtlessly is an
> overgeneralization, seen from the Western angle.
Exactly! They obviously can't see themselves as obsessed with the honor and
obligation bullshit, as I sure can see them.
>
>> But in the west, like with the British, the family name was a BIG deal
> back
>> then. Not sure if that still exists - but it might. I know people right
>> now that are ashamed to admit that they have retarded little brother.
> Only
>> the "culture of victimhood" makes some of them admit to it - and that's a
>> very new thing. It's a PC thing.
>
> Agreed, like many other PC phenomena it is a pretty new thing.
PC is draconian tyranny where everyone learns better methods of lying to
everyone and scheming. It's Big Brother.
>
>> > In Europe (and USA, I suppose), if person A is shouting at person B in
>> > a
>> > crowded restaurant, it will be person B to feel embarrassed. In Japan,
>> > BOTH person A AND person B would feel embarrassed.
>
>> Depends on the people. Both might be embarassed here. I've seen it. I'm
>> not embarassed to yell my hubby's name LOUDLY in a big store to find him.
> I
>> could care less what anyone thinks. I have never seen ANYONE do that in
>> a
>> big store. :)
>
> To call someone's name aloud to find him is not what I was talking about.
> I
> meant shouting in a quarrel.
> The same goes for criticizing someone in public (at work, for instance).
> Nobody loves to be criticized, but in Japan or the Philippines it is an
> OFFENCE to do so, so people rather give SIGNALS of disapproval. It's the
> source of business misunderstandings also.
Well, same here - supervisors can get into trouble for doing that here. BIG
trouble.
>
>> >> > For example: male control of the female prudishness is a dominant
> value
>> >> > in the hot and dry countries of the Middle East,
>
>> >> That is because the men fear women and the woman's influence on men
> that
>> >> tends to make men "lose control." It's also in their Islamic
>> >> religion.
>
>> > Yes, it has a lot to do with control of the female family members.
>
>> No, you miss my point - and my point is DEEP. It has to do with FEAR of
> The
>> Female, Syl. FEAR. And I don't mean just a female, or a woman or
> female
>> relations, no no no. I mean THE Female. And it's always sexual - you
>> notice? I find that SICK, man. Fucking SICK. Even when the males don't
>> act on it, or do anything like that - the FEAR that some men feel is -
> it's
>> so noticeable that you can almost smell it. It's like ego-dick. I
>> can't
>> explain it any other way. You kinda "get it" or you don't "get it."
>
> I think I know what you mean, but this doesn't contradict my point of
> view.
> The incentive may be FEAR of the Female, but the consequence is the
> pursuit
> of control over them. Control reduces fear.
MANY societies have it - Semitic (Mid East), Chinese used to, not sure if
they still do, Hispanic macho culture has it. The more progressive a
culture gets, and the smarter the people in it, the less that goes on, from
what I can see. It doesn't have to do with climate at all.
>
>> > I admit that the climate explanation doesn't hold water, and
>> > patriarchal
>> > societies are the norm. Yet it seems to me that female oppression is
> worst
>> > among Muslims. In Mexico a man has to ask a woman's husband for his
>> > permission to dance with his wife, but in Afghanistan a man would
>> > better
>> > not even *think* of asking his neighbor for a dance with his wife.
>> > Why did patriarchal structures did get so EXTREME in some parts of the
>> > world?
>
>> FEAR. Fear of THE Female. FEAR of competition. Consider this - human
>> sperm has three types: 1. egg seeking, 2. blocking and 3. attack. IF
> human
>> females were not evolved to have more than one mate (which causes
>> diversity) - then why are there 3 types of sperm, specially some males
> have
>> MORE blocker/attacking sperm and others have more egg seeking.
>
> Never heard about that sperm type theory. But if all men have all 3 types
> (albeit in different percentages) - what difference would it make? Male
> competiton remains the same.
It shows that evolutionary biology has made it an as-given that women DO
have multiple mates. We are not a pair bonding species.
Well, heh, if shit in bed "little teeny weeny" men get hold of the power,
they can make sure women CAN NOT choose mates. They did that!
> This way, for females it is most important to have the freedom of choice,
> and that's why I wonder why women could let happen such things like in
> Saudi
> Arabia or Afghanistan where women have practically no say of who will be
> the
> father of their babies.
Women let it happen? Heh, men are bigger and stronger than them. Think
again. Macho is a bully culture, no matter who does it.
>
>> And also, watch out when you say Moslems. My cousins are Moslems. The
>> girls are as wild and free as me - and so are the guys. They aren't
>> SEMITES, tho. They are Tatars. I knew Egyptian Moslems at the med
> school -
>> and the women were PUSHY and very assertive. So not all Moslems are the
>> same. I know Moslems from Malay uh.. Malaysia? Malaya? (I never quite
> get
>> that one right, he's in our egroup) and from Indonesia. They aren't like
>> that at all. Perhaps this is not a climate thing specifically, or a
>> religious thing - but maybe it's heh, RACIAL? I think it is.
Got more info from my the Asian in our egroup - he went to Arabia and well,
he felt like he was in a land of aliens. In no way could he relate to those
people at all, or feel comfortable with them in even the most casual
circumstances.
>
> Yes, Moslems are not all the same, but I do some generalizing because most
> of us will share a common idea of a "typical" Moslem.
Heh, I really don't t hink so. Maybe I'm wrong. I dont share any common
view of ANY person in one religion, or race, at all. I mean for real.
They're all just too different. Now when I'm being a royal bitch - heh, I
can trash every religion and ethnic group on the planet, including my own :)
and make the worst stereotypes (and giggle as I type every word). I get
into my moods, :)
They were effective AGGRESSION techniques - hired killer techniques,
traveling protection squads (like bodyguard) and such.
>
>> > It is true that overt uncontrolled aggression is not tolerated in most
>> > societies, but the concept about WHAT is considered "aggressiveness",
>> > differs widely. As well as the idea of retaliation.
>
>> Mmm, I disagree. I don't know what idea you have of the Japanese, but
> their
>> concepts of retaliation, vendetta and ALL of that - are as strong as the
>> Tatar ones or the Italian ones. And they can go on for generations and
> they
>> are tribal or clan centered. The REASONS for the vendetta with Italians
> and
>> Japanese are the same. With Tatars, no, the reasons are different.
>> Aggressiveness can be when you "get loud" in a public place - I gotta
> watch
>> my slang here - your English is not going to catch it, but I don't know
> how
>> ELSE to explain it. Like this then:
>
> Ah, I should be more precise.
I was precise too and gave an example - you snipped it out.
Every society has to deal with aggressions and
> feelings of retaliation. Yet there are different ways to express it, and
> different ideas about what are adequate ways to deal with it. Let me put
> it
> this way: A German, if offended, might slap the offender's face publicly
> right on the spot. A Japanese might slap the offender's face too, but he
> will prefer to do it behind closed doors.
A Japanese might also start a fight - very much in public. You have some
odd ideas about the Japanese!
>
>> >> > 'Face cultures' like the Japanese seem to be countries where self
>> >> > control is a high value,
>
>> >> It used to that way here too, until the 60s turned society on its
>> >> head.
>> >> People with no self control used to be considered morons, idiots, or
>> >> extremely immature, like babies. Someone might tell them to "grow
>> >> up."
>
>> > Right, there was a "youth revolution" in the 60ies due to the bigger
>> > personal autonomy which individuals had gained, until people realized
> that
>> > we can't live without rules.
>
>> Well, there is a youth revolution going on in Japan too these days - the
>> kids that stay home with parents and don't want to get married or be
>> bothered with making babies. Heh. They are into leisure, pleasure,
> having
>> fun and making money to have more fun with. The youth revolution of the
> 60s
>> in the USA had very little to do with personal autonomy OR individualism.
>
> I meant autonomy in an economical sense - due to increased wealth in the
> USA, the kids didn't have the necessity to work as soon as they could.
Same thing anywhere. Wealth breeds leisure and what I think of as endorphin
driven cultures (natural, not drugs). These are the opposite from adrenalin
driven cultures. And in endorphin driven cultures, heh, people have more
rights to choose options, especially smarter people - and women well, LOTS
of them don't want to be bothered with a 24/7 18 year long responsibility,
perhaps too many women don't want to be botherd with the burdens of the
whole primate placental birth thing, vomiting more than once a day for 3
months, all of that. They either don't want them - or they are willing to
abort them. That's what choice shows they choose WHEN they have so much
leisure and fun instead. Endorphin driven societies, leisure and fun -
people do not want to give that up and revert to hard times. Everyone in
the USA knows damed well, eg, that we bombed a bunch of people and made them
suffer for years cuz we are addicted to the pleasures that OIL and traveling
by car give us - the whole society runs on electricity - mostly from oil
products. So? So they go along with any bullshit that "justifies" taking
it - by any means necessary. Ya see?
>
>> I never saw people become SO clonelike and non individual before that.
> Oh,
>> they had rules - different rules. But they had rules - LOTS of them.
> They
>> were also more prone to JUMP on anyone, like little inquisitors, that
> didn't
>> CONFORM, heh. They were a LOT more intolerant than their parents. Their
>> parents tolerated them just fine. They did not tolerat their parents -
>> or
>> anyone that did not conform to the 60s Frankfurt School PC line of utter
>> bullshit. Of course, we ethnics were "outside" their little conformity
>> group - they made allowances for us because we became "extra special
> people
>> MORE WORTHY than them" in their own eyes. Yah, I thought they were
>> demented. And of course, if you were black, you were a god. That was
> the
>> 60s. Stupid times 100.
>
> The 60ies produced a lot of stupid things, but I don't see it all
> negative.
> Of course, things in Germany were different from what happened in the USA.
I see it as thoroughly negative - it led to the rise in Frankfurt School
power, alienation from family stuff, the REaction to the disaster and now
the rise in fundie thinking - all banded together fundies, too with CLOUT.
It led to the set in stone duming down of education, the draconian tyranny
known as PC, and really stupid kids and teens that can't even think and have
NO CONCEPTION of individualism. Shit, they get their roles from TV sit com
crap and start to act like that.
Yeah, but they were bored and boring and didn't choose much in the way of
anything worthwhile at all. JUNK drugs, JUNK sex (heh, the CHORE of sex -
that is what it became).
Sure did - and it must be genetic because I have it and I'm 100% sci fi fan,
beach loving American.
>
>> So I think you have a wrong premise here. I think you are generalizing
> and
>> making a lot of assumptions based on stereotypes. MANY Japanese do not
> have
>> the face thing. MANY British people DO have the face thing - and so do
>> Irish people. MANY Italians have it. Some don't have it at all. The
>> example you gave of the oldest child becoming a kind of parent to the
>> younger ones can be seen in many European countries - and in the USA,
>> especially in a one parent home. Heh, Jackals do that, you know :)
>
> I admit that I am generalizing, but hey - there *ARE* some national,
> cultural and ethnic differences, or not? :-)
I don't see many differences at all - but being different from BOTH these
groups you are discussing, perhaps I'm in a position to see more sameness
among them than you might be. And ALL these people from these groups notice
specific differences about me and mine - and they notice the same stuff,
especially that "lack of time passing" thing. I have learned to apologise
for it - as I did at the top of this post :) all of that "you gotta do shit
that you definitely do not want to do" when it's not on a job you are being
paid to do - none of that makes sense to me - and ALL Europeans and Asians
you are discussing have it. That whole "honor" thing - I can't even relate
to it or understand it. I understand vendetta (heh, revenge!). I can't
even relate to "what will the neighbors think" shit. I just can't. Like,
why would anyone CARE what anyone else thinks? Are they afraid? Yeah, I
think so - afraid of what, what someone might SAY? Or what someone might
think? I have no idea even IF the neighbors think about me. I don't think
about them. They don't exist unless they are in front of my face saying
something to me. They could vanish tomorrow and I'd not notice it (that
already happened with other neighbors).
I don't see much difference between general "European" cultures and general
"Asian" cultures. I DO see a difference between Swedish and Italian, for
instance, or Japanes and Chinese for instance. But in general, the examples
you are giving - I just don't see it and I personally know a lot of people
of these cultures and have known them in the past. Now I do see a
difference between European civilization and Asian civilization - BIG
differences.
>
>
>
Comm
"Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:ds67qi$eec$03$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
> "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:h0BEf.9726$rH5....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> I don't know what you mean by "does not allow the same spectrum of
>> variation" - what do you mean by that? Their behavior would allow
> ANYTHING,
>> given the right circumstances.
>
> What I mean is that humans have much more options than the OTHER primates
> about which way they live. We can choose monogamy, polygamy, polyandry and
> variations in between, and we can switch from a polygamic society to a
> monogamic one if we want to. Other primates are much more limited. I think
> there is no such thing as a horde of chimps all practising monogamy,
> because
> it's simply outside their nature.
I have to disagree. In monkeys (not so far seen in apes) there are all
three kinds of behavior (alpha male dominant, female group dominant,
equalitarian) - all due to the eco niche they inhabit. Uh, heh, humans can
switch to a polygamic society from.... huh? Try it. See how fast human
society locks up the polygamist! There may not NOW be a horde of chimps
practicing monogamy - but that is not to say that there once wasn't - or
that there couldn't be. One has to research: when did monogamy START among
homo sapiens? We know quite well that ancient societies were not
monogamous. Imo, it's outside human nature to be monogamous - I offer human
behavior and human conceptions as proof, LMAO. People have to
straight-jacket themselves into "not cheating." The fact that it's even
called "cheating" , that "cheating" is a concept people have, is a good
point.
>
>
> Look
>> at the "tree charts" and you tell me there is BIG variation in human
>> behavior? uh, NO, there isn't. There isn't even a BIG variation between
>> orcas and dolphins, imo, except for the "loner orcas" a little bit
> different
>> They are generally pretty similar in behavior.
>
> Maybe we got different concepts of what we consider a *BIG* variation?
I think we do. I see too many similarities where you are seeing BIG
differences. There is a big variation in behavior if you compare mammals
and reptiles. But it's just big, it's not BIG (note capital letters). Yet
there are people that are more like reptiles in behavior - and other humans
do notice it and well, they call them names, like "snake, "reptilian
coldness," etc. LOL. Now there is a BIG variation in behavior if you
compare invertebrates to vertebrates - but then there are also similarities.
And for the BIG BIG variation, compare mammals to fungi. I tend to see
other living creatures as people - keep that in mind. I look at them, they
look back at me - and there is recognition - "we are that same thing - we
are two outer forms OF the same thing." I think I'm speaking spiritually
now, but for me, this is eye-ball obvious. I see it. I had that experience
with a worm, as a kid. Definitely with cats and dogs.
Animals, including humans, behave accordingly based on the eco niche they
are in - they seem to develop or grow into an awareness of what is or is not
appropriate behavior. ALL of it is centered around reproduction, eating,
and the very necessary things needed to survive. So it's not all that BIG
a difference at all - the only BIG differences are in the eco niches. BUT:
It is ONLY when the animal, including humans, have this thing called
"leisure, time to PLAY" that you see things really change. And I mean
REALLY change - they change in a way that seems to be contrary to the nature
of their own survival AS a species or group or let's call it "a clade"!
Think about that. You do realize that animals that negect to breed are
going to go extinct, right? Whatever in the past went into the clade of
humans known as "Germanic" is going to be gone if the clade doesn't
perpetuate itself by breeding. That's what I mean. If a bunch of non
Germanics move into the territory - that's not going to make them into
Germanic people at all. And whatever it was that made Germanics
"Germanic" - the culture they made IN that territory is not going to be the
same as the culture some other clade makes in that territory.
>
>
> That humans have more in common with fellow mammals than with different
> classes of animals is understood, it's also in the number of genes we
> share
> with them.
Well, that the two kinda go together - behavior and genes - is noted.
>
>
>> Or perhaps there was some mutation that got selected in favor of. Like a
>> mutation for pale skin. Got any idea how many must have died from
> Ricketts
>> first? LOTS, I would assume. For instance, in vastly different climates
>> where smarts are a MUST or you just are too stupid to make it, people
> start
>> selecting mates according to how smart they are, how intuitive they are -
>> instead of how strong they are. That right there would make a BIG change
> in
>> a few generations - caused by climate pressures.
>
> Being cuter than other apes was *our* biological niche, and it's perfectly
> clear that cuteness is a huge evolutionary advantage for humans.
LOL, what makes you think that ape parents don't think their kids are cute?
LOL. Cuteness is 100% subjective. I've seen downright UGLY babies. Aside
from which, most people think I have cuteness - a lot of it :). Others
think I look downright demonic or catlike (but they also tend to LIKE
it....hmm). And some people can't stand how I look (unless they are just
flaming me and lying? Who knows or cares). But it's 100% subjective. I
think Elvis Presley is eh, ok. I'd never select his type for a mate. I
think Lee Majors is downright ugly. I think the Chinese actor Wei Pei (he
played the Snake in 5 deadly vemons) is a GOD - he's GORGEOUS.
Also a big
> deal for sexual selection - as far as I know, cuteness is more important
> to
> women when they choose a partner (given that they have a choice in the
> first
> place).
Since the agrarian times and patriarchy, women have NOT been the ones to
choose male mates. Such was either chosen for them by older people,
parents - or men chose.
For men, cuteness may not be *the* most important trait of a
> potential mate, but they mostly like a partner with a similar level of
> intelligence.
COUGH. Uh...rethink that. Think back to before very modern times. Western
men tend to prefer big breasted women, upturned kind, women with pretty
faces, nice build. Men didn't have much in the way of dialogue with their
wives - and this is true today in most cultures still. Men, even Western
men, didn't think women had brains enough to think and dialogue!
>
>
> Right, 98% of all species which ever existed are now extinct. Your and my
> ancestors survived. They didn't have to deal with a different climate
> every
> year - I suppose, sometimes over many generations they lived in a stable
> environment and their social life was shaped by the conditions which ruled
> them over a long period.
See, now what are you and others calling stable? Someone has convinced you
that things are the opposite of how they really are. The land that the
Bantus live in is stable - there is very little climate change there. Most
of those African tribes, ones that never even thought to invent a wheel,
lived in 100% stable environments. Your immediate ancestors (I have no idea
about older ones) came from an environment that is not stable at all - it
has 4 seasons and drastic changes in weather from hot/cold. Imagine living
in Germany with NO technology, no house, nothing - try thinking about that.
Not stable at all. You'd die, you'd freeze to death. Mine came from the
arctic where there are two seasons, dark and light. Both yours and mine had
to deal with changes in climate - yours by changing the environment with
technology, mine by being nomadic all the time. You know, blacks in the USA
only moved from the southern states up to Chicago and ended up dying in
droves from Ricketts. Of course, Europeans found a way to fix the problem.
I think the time of travel is only about 3 hours ride! For me, I wouldn't
even notice the difference since the southern states also have 4 seasons.
That, in terms of evolutionary biology, would be then a BIG change in
climate if that much happened from it. The cultures that don't seem to
produce jack squat in terms of technology, not even inventing the wheel, are
the ones that are in stable environments. NOT the other way around. There
is NOTHING stable about European climate. People would rather come to
Florida during a hurricane and stay cooped up for about 4 days rather than
live where there are long winters and heaps of snow.
That's how we arrived at different ethnicities. Of
> course sometimes all could change within just one lifetime by a major
> desaster. It's punctuated equilibrium.
Well, different ethnicities - the kind that are eye-ball obvious, have to be
due to selection. Then again, it might have to do with something else - like
for instance if every single person in Sweden were to marry a Bantu - it
would be the next generation that would completely alter the "look" of the
Swedish people. No one on the planet would consider them white anymore,
either. Then again, if every single blonde haired blue eyed person in
Germany married ONLY other blonde haired and blue eyed people - and no one
else in Germany had kids - the next generation of Germans would ALL have
blonde hair and blue eyes. You can breed out dominant traits in ONE
generation. That fast. By the same token, you can overwhelm the appearance
of a population in one generation if they breed with people that have very
dominant traits. Someone claimed that humans were not bred like animals.
Well heh, humans bred themselves. And who is to know for sure that some
King or ancient pre-historic tribal leader didn't actually breed his
subjects in the way I just mentioned above? In modern history, we do know
about one person that DID TRY for that, wanted to do it. The fact is,
Sylvia - it CAN BE DONE - and from what I know about humans, if it can be
done, someone must have tried to do it, maybe even DONE it in the past. So
who is to say no one ELSE ever thought of it - and maybe did it? We don't
know. I rest on the side of "yeah, people did think of it and they did do
it." We do know how pale skin came about (See Professor Sweet's website) -
and that people did breed FOR IT is obvious. It's more than obvious.
As far as cuteness and aesthetics - OK - here goes: EYES: for me, long
slitted and slanted eyes are the cutest of the cute - the longer, the
slittier, the more cute. Color of eyes doesn't matter. Large round eyes do
not look cute to me - they look cold and predatory. You do realize that
people with big round eyes tend to see people with long slitty eyes as
demonic looking? Noses: high bridged straight noses (like mine) are the
cutest to me. The kind that (hard to describe here) tend to be downpointing
and also make like this triangle at the bottom, face on, the nostriles flave
up from the center of nose top make a triangle, are the sexiest noses. I
can't STAND to look at low bridged and big wide noses. They look deformed
to me, no matter who has them (S. Asians have that a lot, so do some
blacks). LIPS: full lips that make a "bow shape" when you smile are the
prettiest to me. The space between the upper lip and nose can be short and
upcurved or long. I think long ones are atrocious looking. I like visible
cheekbones on people - that's cute to me. I don't like long faces - and
detest big chins.
>
>
Sylvia Knörr
> Sorry for LONG absense - but I was heh, gone. See in.
Replying is not mandatory. :-)
> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:dse5r1$bss$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
> > "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:UMCEf.10906$vU2....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> >> news:dr3u9n$15d$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
> >> > "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> >> > news:gPyAf.4225$vU2...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >> >> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> >> >> news:dops9f$8s8$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
> > Every society has its issues of shame, but we call only some of the
Oriental
> > ones "Face cultures". I suppose they have some traits which the others
> > have not.
> Uh, heh, it only means that white people CALL some Asian cultures face
> cultures and see them that way - apparently they are incapable of seeing
> THEMSELVES as face cultures. I sure can see it. They hide their faces in
> shame, heh, LOTS of times.
You might have point here.
> >> Most of my ethnicity is eastern, or at least central Asian. We are
NOTHING
> >> LIKE the Japanese. We are a people with almost no concept of shame.
> >> Like, why feel shame? What is shame, anyway? I think I don't know!
> > To call all Asian societies "Face cultures" doubtlessly is an
> > overgeneralization, seen from the Western angle.
> Exactly! They obviously can't see themselves as obsessed with the honor
and
> obligation bullshit, as I sure can see them.
Well, I wouldn't call it 'bullshit' generally. Honor translates to
reputation, and it can make a difference on a person's status, job, income,
mating partners - you name it. People usually have a REASON to care about
honor.
> >> But in the west, like with the British, the family name was a BIG deal
> >> back then. Not sure if that still exists - but it might. I know
people right
> >> now that are ashamed to admit that they have retarded little brother.
Only
> >> the "culture of victimhood" makes some of them admit to it - and that's
a
> >> very new thing. It's a PC thing.
> > Agreed, like many other PC phenomena it is a pretty new thing.
> PC is draconian tyranny where everyone learns better methods of lying to
> everyone and scheming. It's Big Brother.
PC may have been an invention of good intentions - rules to provide RESPECT
in human communication. But more and more it has overrun its aims, and
turned into tyranny, yes.
Agreed, it has probably little to do with climate.
> >> > I admit that the climate explanation doesn't hold water, and
patriarchal
> >> > societies are the norm. Yet it seems to me that female oppression is
worst
> >> > among Muslims. In Mexico a man has to ask a woman's husband for his
> >> > permission to dance with his wife, but in Afghanistan a man would
> >> > better not even *think* of asking his neighbor for a dance with his
wife.
> >> > Why did patriarchal structures did get so EXTREME in some parts of
the
> >> > world?
> >> FEAR. Fear of THE Female. FEAR of competition. Consider this - human
> >> sperm has three types: 1. egg seeking, 2. blocking and 3. attack. IF
human
> >> females were not evolved to have more than one mate (which causes
> >> diversity) - then why are there 3 types of sperm, specially some males
> >> have MORE blocker/attacking sperm and others have more egg seeking.
> > Never heard about that sperm type theory. But if all men have all 3
types
> > (albeit in different percentages) - what difference would it make? Male
> > competiton remains the same.
> It shows that evolutionary biology has made it an as-given that women DO
> have multiple mates. We are not a pair bonding species.
Okay, but this doesn't explain why in some societies gender relationships
are more or less egalitarian, while in others women suffer harsh
suppression. I'm talking about societies of comparable standards of
development, not First world vs Third world societies.
> > This way, for females it is most important to have the freedom of
choice,
> > and that's why I wonder why women could let happen such things like in
Saudi
> > Arabia or Afghanistan where women have practically no say of who will be
> > the father of their babies.
> Women let it happen? Heh, men are bigger and stronger than them. Think
> again. Macho is a bully culture, no matter who does it.
Yes, but like I said above - it didn't happen everywhere to the same degree.
There must be something which 'triggers' and supports macho behavior, and
there must be something which supports female influence.
> >> And also, watch out when you say Moslems. My cousins are Moslems. The
> >> girls are as wild and free as me - and so are the guys. They aren't
> >> SEMITES, tho. They are Tatars. I knew Egyptian Moslems at the med
school -
> >> and the women were PUSHY and very assertive. So not all Moslems are
the
> >> same. I know Moslems from Malay uh.. Malaysia? Malaya? (I never quite
> >> get that one right, he's in our egroup) and from Indonesia. They
aren't like
> >> that at all. Perhaps this is not a climate thing specifically, or a
> >> religious thing - but maybe it's heh, RACIAL? I think it is.
> Got more info from my the Asian in our egroup - he went to Arabia and
well,
> he felt like he was in a land of aliens. In no way could he relate to
those
> people at all, or feel comfortable with them in even the most casual
> circumstances.
Yes, I think the Asian and the Arab versions of Islam are quite distinct due
to culture differences.
> > Yes, Moslems are not all the same, but I do some generalizing because
most
> > of us will share a common idea of a "typical" Moslem.
> Heh, I really don't t hink so. Maybe I'm wrong. I dont share any common
> view of ANY person in one religion, or race, at all. I mean for real.
> They're all just too different. Now when I'm being a royal bitch - heh, I
> can trash every religion and ethnic group on the planet, including my own
:)
> and make the worst stereotypes (and giggle as I type every word). I get
> into my moods, :)
It's difficult to talk about certain GROUPS of humans without a little
stereotypizing.
> > Every society has to deal with aggressions and
> > feelings of retaliation. Yet there are different ways to express it, and
> > different ideas about what are adequate ways to deal with it. Let me put
> > it this way: A German, if offended, might slap the offender's face
publicly
> > right on the spot. A Japanese might slap the offender's face too, but he
> > will prefer to do it behind closed doors.
> A Japanese might also start a fight - very much in public. You have some
> odd ideas about the Japanese!
Just from what I see. My hometown is a tourist place with lots of Americans,
Japanese, Spaniards and Italians. In all these many years living here I
NEVER observed a single act of aggression of a Japanese.
Huh? You think some cultures have higher average endorphine/ adrenaline
levels?
And in endorphin driven cultures, heh, people have more
> rights to choose options, especially smarter people - and women well, LOTS
> of them don't want to be bothered with a 24/7 18 year long responsibility,
> perhaps too many women don't want to be botherd with the burdens of the
> whole primate placental birth thing, vomiting more than once a day for 3
> months, all of that. They either don't want them - or they are willing to
> abort them. That's what choice shows they choose WHEN they have so much
> leisure and fun instead. Endorphin driven societies, leisure and fun -
> people do not want to give that up and revert to hard times. Everyone in
> the USA knows damed well, eg, that we bombed a bunch of people and made
them
> suffer for years cuz we are addicted to the pleasures that OIL and
traveling
> by car give us - the whole society runs on electricity - mostly from oil
> products. So? So they go along with any bullshit that "justifies" taking
> it - by any means necessary. Ya see?
Well, I see that people prefer an easy life over a hard life, and once they
have it easy, they kind of get addicted to that liefstyle. Like drug addicts
they do a lot of things to justify and perpetuate their addiction.
> > The 60ies produced a lot of stupid things, but I don't see it all
> > negative.
> > Of course, things in Germany were different from what happened in the
USA.
> I see it as thoroughly negative - it led to the rise in Frankfurt School
> power, alienation from family stuff, the REaction to the disaster and now
> the rise in fundie thinking - all banded together fundies, too with CLOUT.
> It led to the set in stone duming down of education, the draconian tyranny
> known as PC, and really stupid kids and teens that can't even think and
have
> NO CONCEPTION of individualism. Shit, they get their roles from TV sit
com
> crap and start to act like that.
But it led to female emancipation and greater racial equality on the other
side. So it wasn't all bad. :-)
> >> So I think you have a wrong premise here. I think you are generalizing
and
> >> making a lot of assumptions based on stereotypes. MANY Japanese do not
> >> have the face thing. MANY British people DO have the face thing - and
so do
> >> Irish people. MANY Italians have it. Some don't have it at all. The
> >> example you gave of the oldest child becoming a kind of parent to the
> >> younger ones can be seen in many European countries - and in the USA,
> >> especially in a one parent home. Heh, Jackals do that, you know :)
> > I admit that I am generalizing, but hey - there *ARE* some national,
> > cultural and ethnic differences, or not? :-)
> I don't see many differences at all - but being different from BOTH these
> groups you are discussing, perhaps I'm in a position to see more sameness
> among them than you might be.
Right, it's a matter of perception.
> And ALL these people from these groups notice
> specific differences about me and mine - and they notice the same stuff,
> especially that "lack of time passing" thing. I have learned to apologise
> for it - as I did at the top of this post :) all of that "you gotta do
shit
> that you definitely do not want to do" when it's not on a job you are
being
> paid to do - none of that makes sense to me - and ALL Europeans and Asians
> you are discussing have it. That whole "honor" thing - I can't even
relate
> to it or understand it. I understand vendetta (heh, revenge!). I can't
> even relate to "what will the neighbors think" shit. I just can't. Like,
> why would anyone CARE what anyone else thinks? Are they afraid? Yeah, I
> think so - afraid of what, what someone might SAY? Or what someone might
> think? I have no idea even IF the neighbors think about me. I don't
think
> about them. They don't exist unless they are in front of my face saying
> something to me. They could vanish tomorrow and I'd not notice it (that
> already happened with other neighbors).
You simply can AFFORD not to care what your neighbors think, because you
don't really NEED them. Other people with less aloofness might feel an urge
to be in accordance with their neighborhood.
> I don't see much difference between general "European" cultures and
general
> "Asian" cultures. I DO see a difference between Swedish and Italian, for
> instance, or Japanes and Chinese for instance. But in general, the
examples
> you are giving - I just don't see it and I personally know a lot of people
> of these cultures and have known them in the past. Now I do see a
> difference between European civilization and Asian civilization - BIG
> differences.
Obviously we both *DO* see differences, but we draw the lines differently.
Comm
"Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:dvi4f9$s5$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
> "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:ijMQf.10293$S25....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>
> Well, I wouldn't call it 'bullshit' generally. Honor translates to
> reputation, and it can make a difference on a person's status, job,
> income,
> mating partners - you name it. People usually have a REASON to care about
> honor.
Well, a society that sees an individual tied up with all that other
extraneous stuff is imo - DUMB. If people have to worry 24/7 about
reputation - then where is freedom? The people in that society would be
ruled by fear. That's my point, it's why I call it bullshit.
>
>> PC is draconian tyranny where everyone learns better methods of lying to
>> everyone and scheming. It's Big Brother.
>
> PC may have been an invention of good intentions - rules to provide
> RESPECT
> in human communication. But more and more it has overrun its aims, and
> turned into tyranny, yes.
It has become a vehicle by which non-Europeans TRASH Europeans - and that's
OK.
>
>
> Okay, but this doesn't explain why in some societies gender relationships
> are more or less egalitarian, while in others women suffer harsh
> suppression. I'm talking about societies of comparable standards of
> development, not First world vs Third world societies.
You sure about that? Seems to me that the most modern First World countries
have the most gender equality. The most backward crapholes of countries in
what we call Third World do not. Their values are mideval.
>
>> > This way, for females it is most important to have the freedom of
> choice,
>> > and that's why I wonder why women could let happen such things like in
> Saudi
>> > Arabia or Afghanistan where women have practically no say of who will
>> > be
>> > the father of their babies.
>
>> Women let it happen? Heh, men are bigger and stronger than them. Think
>> again. Macho is a bully culture, no matter who does it.
>
> Yes, but like I said above - it didn't happen everywhere to the same
> degree.
Yes it did at one time. Only very recently do women in First World
countries have equality. Maybe you don't realize how RECENT this First
World mentality is. VERY recent. Women didn't even have the right to vote
in the USA until relatively recently!
> There must be something which 'triggers' and supports macho behavior, and
> there must be something which supports female influence.
Sure - a reason to select in favor of bullyish, brutish people instead of
intelligence and peaceful natures. Some of the men of these brutish
cultures have measurably more testosterone than other men - see website and
posts of James Michael Howard for ALL you could want to know about
testosterone. What supported female influence in First World countries
was - heh, that same old Cultural Marxism that we also have much to rail
against. It's really something very recent.
>
>> >> And also, watch out when you say Moslems. My cousins are Moslems.
>> >> The
>> >> girls are as wild and free as me - and so are the guys. They aren't
>> >> SEMITES, tho. They are Tatars. I knew Egyptian Moslems at the med
> school -
>> >> and the women were PUSHY and very assertive. So not all Moslems are
> the
>> >> same. I know Moslems from Malay uh.. Malaysia? Malaya? (I never
>> >> quite
>> >> get that one right, he's in our egroup) and from Indonesia. They
> aren't like
>> >> that at all. Perhaps this is not a climate thing specifically, or a
>> >> religious thing - but maybe it's heh, RACIAL? I think it is.
>
>> Got more info from my the Asian in our egroup - he went to Arabia and
> well,
>> he felt like he was in a land of aliens. In no way could he relate to
> those
>> people at all, or feel comfortable with them in even the most casual
>> circumstances.
>
> Yes, I think the Asian and the Arab versions of Islam are quite distinct
> due
> to culture differences.
Cultural differences perhaps. Some might say racial differences. Who
knows. But they ARE very different.
>
>> > Yes, Moslems are not all the same, but I do some generalizing because
> most
>> > of us will share a common idea of a "typical" Moslem.
>
>> Heh, I really don't t hink so. Maybe I'm wrong. I dont share any common
>> view of ANY person in one religion, or race, at all. I mean for real.
>> They're all just too different. Now when I'm being a royal bitch - heh,
>> I
>> can trash every religion and ethnic group on the planet, including my own
> :)
>> and make the worst stereotypes (and giggle as I type every word). I get
>> into my moods, :)
>
> It's difficult to talk about certain GROUPS of humans without a little
> stereotypizing.
Well, the stereotypes are even used by comedians and people in those grouops
recognize THEMSELVES very easily - and they think it's funny. The
stereotypes are based on real experiences people have had.
>
>> A Japanese might also start a fight - very much in public. You have some
>> odd ideas about the Japanese!
>
> Just from what I see. My hometown is a tourist place with lots of
> Americans,
> Japanese, Spaniards and Italians. In all these many years living here I
> NEVER observed a single act of aggression of a Japanese.
TOURISTS. They are not an objective sample. I can remember at least 3
times a Japanese male got out of his car and was ready to start a physical
fight with me for merely beeping my horn at him (cuz he was taking TOO LONG
at a toll booth). They were Japanese, they were cursing in what clearly
sounded like Japanese LOL. They didn't continue to the point of fighting
me - maybe noticed I was a girl and I guess backed off - I say that cuz they
looked up at me, seemed surprised, and then backed off. LOL. On the other
hand, maybe they figured I might have a gun because I did not flinch a bit
when they did this - I just watched them kinda expressionless. I can
remember Vietnamese people going ape shit over a small, TINY dent a friend
made in their car while parking - they got out, FURIOUS, stood there
pointing and screaming, "you make HORE in caa, you make HORE in caa" LMAO.
It was the FUNNIEST thing I ever saw. The FIERCE looks on their faces,
PHEW. Meanwhile, my friend, a real nordic type of NW European guy, stood
there like a stoical statue waiting for them to calm down, with his wallet
and insurance papers out. LMAO. It was HILARIOUS to see this. It's funny
even now, 30 years later. My dentist's wife (both are Chinese Americans)
divorced him because she said he had a violent temper - and she had no
qualms about letting EVERYONE know the details about all of it. So there
goes the whole "they don't show it" idea. I wouldn't tend to show anger or
get into a miff if I was vacationing as a tourist either, you know. It's
just that it's a strange place, not my home turf, and I'd just NOT behave
that way on strange turf.
>
>
>> Same thing anywhere. Wealth breeds leisure and what I think of as
> endorphin
>> driven cultures (natural, not drugs). These are the opposite from
> adrenalin
>> driven cultures.
>
> Huh? You think some cultures have higher average endorphine/ adrenaline
> levels?
Sure. Measurably so. A culture where you have dog eat dog and have to
struggle 24/7 is adrenalin driven. A culture where I lay back and type to
you and then go watch the Sopranos is endorphin driven. Simple. Once
people get used to that leisure - they don't want to lose it! It's ALL
biochemistry, you know.
Yes. Only it's not drugs per se. It's natural state of biochemisty.
People DO NOT like stress.
>
>> > The 60ies produced a lot of stupid things, but I don't see it all
>> > negative.
>> > Of course, things in Germany were different from what happened in the
> USA.
>
>> I see it as thoroughly negative - it led to the rise in Frankfurt School
>> power, alienation from family stuff, the REaction to the disaster and now
>> the rise in fundie thinking - all banded together fundies, too with
>> CLOUT.
>> It led to the set in stone duming down of education, the draconian
>> tyranny
>> known as PC, and really stupid kids and teens that can't even think and
> have
>> NO CONCEPTION of individualism. Shit, they get their roles from TV sit
> com
>> crap and start to act like that.
>
> But it led to female emancipation and greater racial equality on the other
> side. So it wasn't all bad. :-)
It led to greater female emancipation (and lack of a positive birth rate -
which is NOT so good for a population) and well, it didn't lead to racial
equality - it led to ANTI EUROPEAN racism to the point of "it's OK to
destroy European cultures."
The question is - WHY? When I ask them, they usually have no answer - and
they don't need their neighbors either.
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch
It's all about status, folks, regardless whether you call it honor, respect,
or "face."
Sylvia Knörr
> Hey, just saw this post. See in. I'm snipping some.
> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:ds67qi$eec$03$1...@news.t-online.com...
> > "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:h0BEf.9726$rH5....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >> I don't know what you mean by "does not allow the same spectrum of
> >> variation" - what do you mean by that? Their behavior would allow
> >> ANYTHING, given the right circumstances.
> > What I mean is that humans have much more options than the OTHER
primates
> > about which way they live. We can choose monogamy, polygamy, polyandry
and
> > variations in between, and we can switch from a polygamic society to a
> > monogamic one if we want to. Other primates are much more limited. I
think
> > there is no such thing as a horde of chimps all practising monogamy,
> > because it's simply outside their nature.
> I have to disagree. In monkeys (not so far seen in apes) there are all
> three kinds of behavior (alpha male dominant, female group dominant,
> equalitarian) - all due to the eco niche they inhabit.
Of course there are variations among monkeys and apes depending on what
species you are talking about. WITHIN one species, there is little
variation.
> Uh, heh, humans can
> switch to a polygamic society from.... huh? Try it. See how fast human
> society locks up the polygamist! There may not NOW be a horde of chimps
> practicing monogamy - but that is not to say that there once wasn't - or
> that there couldn't be. One has to research: when did monogamy START
among
> homo sapiens? We know quite well that ancient societies were not
> monogamous. Imo, it's outside human nature to be monogamous - I offer
human
> behavior and human conceptions as proof, LMAO. People have to
> straight-jacket themselves into "not cheating." The fact that it's even
> called "cheating" , that "cheating" is a concept people have, is a good
> point.
We may not be monogamous in the strictest sense of the word, but neither are
we polygamous in the strict sense of the word. You will hardly find any
group of humans where overt promiscuity is accepted. Instead you will find
both men and women trying to control and inhibit possible sex partners of
their spouses as much as possible.
> > Maybe we got different concepts of what we consider a *BIG* variation?
> I think we do. I see too many similarities where you are seeing BIG
> differences. There is a big variation in behavior if you compare mammals
> and reptiles. But it's just big, it's not BIG (note capital letters).
Yet
> there are people that are more like reptiles in behavior - and other
humans
> do notice it and well, they call them names, like "snake, "reptilian
> coldness," etc. LOL. Now there is a BIG variation in behavior if you
> compare invertebrates to vertebrates - but then there are also
similarities.
> And for the BIG BIG variation, compare mammals to fungi. I tend to see
> other living creatures as people - keep that in mind. I look at them,
they
> look back at me - and there is recognition - "we are that same thing - we
> are two outer forms OF the same thing." I think I'm speaking spiritually
> now, but for me, this is eye-ball obvious. I see it. I had that
experience
> with a worm, as a kid. Definitely with cats and dogs.
Since this is sci.anthropology, the "small" differences of humans matter.
:-)
> Animals, including humans, behave accordingly based on the eco niche they
> are in - they seem to develop or grow into an awareness of what is or is
not
> appropriate behavior. ALL of it is centered around reproduction, eating,
> and the very necessary things needed to survive. So it's not all that
BIG
> a difference at all - the only BIG differences are in the eco niches.
BUT:
> It is ONLY when the animal, including humans, have this thing called
> "leisure, time to PLAY" that you see things really change. And I mean
> REALLY change - they change in a way that seems to be contrary to the
nature
> of their own survival AS a species or group or let's call it "a clade"!
> Think about that. You do realize that animals that negect to breed are
> going to go extinct, right? Whatever in the past went into the clade of
> humans known as "Germanic" is going to be gone if the clade doesn't
> perpetuate itself by breeding. That's what I mean. If a bunch of non
> Germanics move into the territory - that's not going to make them into
> Germanic people at all. And whatever it was that made Germanics
> "Germanic" - the culture they made IN that territory is not going to be
the
> same as the culture some other clade makes in that territory.
Sure. See what I mean? A "little" difference of behavior will amount to a
BIG difference in future - like some groups go extinct. If my folks will die
out within the next few generations, it just means that we were not carriers
of SUCCESSFUL genes, if these genes make us poor breeders. The fact that we
are some kind of "top dogs" now will not help us at all, evolutionarywise.
> >> Or perhaps there was some mutation that got selected in favor of. Like
a
> >> mutation for pale skin. Got any idea how many must have died from
Ricketts
> >> first? LOTS, I would assume. For instance, in vastly different
climates
> >> where smarts are a MUST or you just are too stupid to make it, people
start
> >> selecting mates according to how smart they are, how intuitive they
are -
> >> instead of how strong they are. That right there would make a BIG
change
> >> in a few generations - caused by climate pressures.
> > Being cuter than other apes was *our* biological niche, and it's
perfectly
> > clear that cuteness is a huge evolutionary advantage for humans.
> LOL, what makes you think that ape parents don't think their kids are
cute?
Oh sorry, I think I used the wrong term. I meant 'cute' in the sense of
'smart', NOT in the sense of 'sweet-looking'.
All the following is based on the misunderstanding of the word 'cute'.
> LOL. Cuteness is 100% subjective. I've seen downright UGLY babies.
Aside
> from which, most people think I have cuteness - a lot of it :). Others
> think I look downright demonic or catlike (but they also tend to LIKE
> it....hmm). And some people can't stand how I look (unless they are just
> flaming me and lying? Who knows or cares). But it's 100% subjective. I
> think Elvis Presley is eh, ok. I'd never select his type for a mate. I
> think Lee Majors is downright ugly. I think the Chinese actor Wei Pei (he
> played the Snake in 5 deadly vemons) is a GOD - he's GORGEOUS.
> > Also a big
> > deal for sexual selection - as far as I know, cuteness is more important
to
> > women when they choose a partner (given that they have a choice in the
> > first place).
> Since the agrarian times and patriarchy, women have NOT been the ones to
> choose male mates. Such was either chosen for them by older people,
> parents - or men chose.
I think that was not generally so, and women had SOME choice in many cases,
though not to the same degree as men. Compared to hunter-gatherers, he
female options mostly were diminished, but not everywhere completely lost.
> For men, cuteness may not be *the* most important trait of a
> > potential mate, but they mostly like a partner with a similar level of
> > intelligence.
> COUGH. Uh...rethink that. Think back to before very modern times.
Western
> men tend to prefer big breasted women, upturned kind, women with pretty
> faces, nice build. Men didn't have much in the way of dialogue with their
> wives - and this is true today in most cultures still. Men, even Western
> men, didn't think women had brains enough to think and dialogue!
Again, this is based on my misleading use of the word 'cute'. Replace it
with 'smart' and maybe you can agree with me.
> > Right, 98% of all species which ever existed are now extinct. Your and
my
> > ancestors survived. They didn't have to deal with a different climate
every
> > year - I suppose, sometimes over many generations they lived in a stable
> > environment and their social life was shaped by the conditions which
ruled
> > them over a long period.
> See, now what are you and others calling stable? Someone has convinced
you
> that things are the opposite of how they really are. The land that the
> Bantus live in is stable - there is very little climate change there.
I didn't mean to say that European or Asian climate was more stable than
African climate. What I intended to say was that people were not
"catapulted" into different climate zones like modern humans which board a
plane in Anchorage and disembark in Mexico City. For the most time of
history, people used to travel and migrate SLOWLY, so their bodies had time
to adapt.
Most
> of those African tribes, ones that never even thought to invent a wheel,
> lived in 100% stable environments. Your immediate ancestors (I have no
idea
> about older ones) came from an environment that is not stable at all - it
> has 4 seasons and drastic changes in weather from hot/cold. Imagine
living
> in Germany with NO technology, no house, nothing - try thinking about
that.
> Not stable at all. You'd die, you'd freeze to death. Mine came from the
> arctic where there are two seasons, dark and light. Both yours and mine
had
> to deal with changes in climate - yours by changing the environment with
> technology, mine by being nomadic all the time. You know, blacks in the
USA
> only moved from the southern states up to Chicago and ended up dying in
> droves from Ricketts. Of course, Europeans found a way to fix the
problem.
Of course people KNEW what climate they can deal with, so by and large they
tried to stay on the same latitude if possible - when Europeans settled on
the American continent, they almost automatically chose their destinations:
British, French and Germans in North America, Spanish and Portuguese in
South America (with some exceptions nonwithstanding).
Fixing the problem of bad physical adaption by medical means is a quite
recent solution.
Yes, the Nazis had that "breed blonde and blue-eyed kids for the Führer"
crap. It's stupid. Let people choose which mate suits them best, and nature
will select the most suitable ones for the places they live in.
> As far as cuteness and aesthetics - OK - here goes: EYES: for me, long
> slitted and slanted eyes are the cutest of the cute - the longer, the
> slittier, the more cute. Color of eyes doesn't matter. Large round eyes
do
> not look cute to me - they look cold and predatory. You do realize that
> people with big round eyes tend to see people with long slitty eyes as
> demonic looking? Noses: high bridged straight noses (like mine) are the
> cutest to me. The kind that (hard to describe here) tend to be
downpointing
> and also make like this triangle at the bottom, face on, the nostriles
flave
> up from the center of nose top make a triangle, are the sexiest noses. I
> can't STAND to look at low bridged and big wide noses. They look deformed
> to me, no matter who has them (S. Asians have that a lot, so do some
> blacks). LIPS: full lips that make a "bow shape" when you smile are the
> prettiest to me. The space between the upper lip and nose can be short
and
> upcurved or long. I think long ones are atrocious looking. I like
visible
> cheekbones on people - that's cute to me. I don't like long faces - and
> detest big chins.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. :-)
Most humans appreciate looks which are not too different from their own face
in the mirror. Of course, to date someone of a different color has a lot of
sex appeal, but those who walk that path are a minority in most places.
Sylvia Knörr
"Aardvark J. Bandersnatch" <sumb...@micrsfot.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:YXUTf.837016$x96.336864@attbi_s72...
> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:dvi4f9$s5$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
> >> >> Most of my ethnicity is eastern, or at least central Asian. We are
NOTHING
> >> >> LIKE the Japanese. We are a people with almost no concept of shame.
> >> >> Like, why feel shame? What is shame, anyway? I think I don't know!
> >> > To call all Asian societies "Face cultures" doubtlessly is an
> >> > overgeneralization, seen from the Western angle.
> >> Exactly! They obviously can't see themselves as obsessed with the
honor
> >> and obligation bullshit, as I sure can see them.
> > Well, I wouldn't call it 'bullshit' generally. Honor translates to
> > reputation, and it can make a difference on a person's status, job,
income,
> > mating partners - you name it. People usually have a REASON to care
about
> > honor.
> It's all about status, folks, regardless whether you call it honor,
respect,
> or "face."
Thanks for putting it in simple words! :-)
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch
You're welcome!
Sylvia Knörr
> Hi, see in. I'm snipping a lot .
> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:dvi4f9$s5$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
> > "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:ijMQf.10293$S25....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > Well, I wouldn't call it 'bullshit' generally. Honor translates to
> > reputation, and it can make a difference on a person's status, job,
income,
> > mating partners - you name it. People usually have a REASON to care
about
> > honor.
> Well, a society that sees an individual tied up with all that other
> extraneous stuff is imo - DUMB. If people have to worry 24/7 about
> reputation - then where is freedom? The people in that society would be
> ruled by fear. That's my point, it's why I call it bullshit.
When people care about honor/ face/ reputation, it doesn't necessarily mean
they are 24/7 worried about it. It doesn't even mean they give up all their
freedom for it - yet they probably give up things which pose a threat to
their idea of a good reputation. It's just about priorities.
> >> PC is draconian tyranny where everyone learns better methods of lying
to
> >> everyone and scheming. It's Big Brother.
> > PC may have been an invention of good intentions - rules to provide
RESPECT
> > in human communication. But more and more it has overrun its aims, and
> > turned into tyranny, yes.
> It has become a vehicle by which non-Europeans TRASH Europeans - and
that's
> OK.
Europe has always been a battlefield of concepts - particularly Germany,
since it's placed in the heart of Europe and almost every migration movement
leaves its marks. We did a lot of bullying in the past, and today we are -
well, a little more reluctant. We can no longer expect other people to
consider us as superior in any way, so we have to deal with *THEIR* concepts
of social rules. PC is some kind of backlash of our arrogance in the past.
Me must try to find a new equilibrium.
> > Okay, but this doesn't explain why in some societies gender
relationships
> > are more or less egalitarian, while in others women suffer harsh
> > suppression. I'm talking about societies of comparable standards of
> > development, not First world vs Third world societies.
> You sure about that? Seems to me that the most modern First World
countries
> have the most gender equality. The most backward crapholes of countries
in
> what we call Third World do not. Their values are mideval.
What I meant is that Third World countries are not all the same when it
comes to women's rights. And my question is, "Why are some Third World
countries more macho dominated than others?"
> >> > This way, for females it is most important to have the freedom of
choice,
> >> > and that's why I wonder why women could let happen such things like
in
> >> > Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan where women have practically no say of
who will
> >> > be the father of their babies.
> >> Women let it happen? Heh, men are bigger and stronger than them.
Think
> >> again. Macho is a bully culture, no matter who does it.
> > Yes, but like I said above - it didn't happen everywhere to the same
> > degree.
> Yes it did at one time. Only very recently do women in First World
> countries have equality. Maybe you don't realize how RECENT this First
> World mentality is. VERY recent. Women didn't even have the right to
vote
> in the USA until relatively recently!
I am aware of that. Equal gender rights are hard to be found, and Europe and
America made no exception until recently. BUT: female status was not
EVERYWHERE as low as it still is today in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. It
may not be a bed of roses for females in the Philippines or Ecuador, but I
guess you would admit that they are comparably better off there.
> > There must be something which 'triggers' and supports macho behavior,
and
> > there must be something which supports female influence.
> Sure - a reason to select in favor of bullyish, brutish people instead of
> intelligence and peaceful natures. Some of the men of these brutish
> cultures have measurably more testosterone than other men - see website
and
> posts of James Michael Howard for ALL you could want to know about
> testosterone. What supported female influence in First World countries
> was - heh, that same old Cultural Marxism that we also have much to rail
> against. It's really something very recent.
Yes, testosterone levels may play a role here. Still we are left with the
question why some societies seem to breed in favor of higher testosterone
levels and some prefer the low-testosterone guys.
Maybe there is a mechanism which works like a one way ticket in one
direction. Maybe it is a mechanism we can MANIPULATE. That would be the
handle to reverse undesirable trends.
> > It's difficult to talk about certain GROUPS of humans without a little
> > stereotypizing.
> Well, the stereotypes are even used by comedians and people in those
grouops
> recognize THEMSELVES very easily - and they think it's funny. The
> stereotypes are based on real experiences people have had.
Exactly my point. Stereotypes may be dead wrond for an INDIVIDUAL, but
groupwise they contain some truth. I guess many people squirm about it
because this truth is sometimes a bit embarrassing.
Agreed, tourists act differently than people on their home turf. But I can
compare the behavior of tourists among each others. I can definitely say
that there *IS* a difference based on nationalities.
> >> > The 60ies produced a lot of stupid things, but I don't see it all
> >> > negative.
> >> > Of course, things in Germany were different from what happened in the
> >> > USA.
> >> I see it as thoroughly negative - it led to the rise in Frankfurt
School
> >> power, alienation from family stuff, the REaction to the disaster and
now
> >> the rise in fundie thinking - all banded together fundies, too with
> >> CLOUT.
> >> It led to the set in stone duming down of education, the draconian
tyranny
> >> known as PC, and really stupid kids and teens that can't even think and
have
> >> NO CONCEPTION of individualism. Shit, they get their roles from TV sit
> >> com crap and start to act like that.
> > But it led to female emancipation and greater racial equality on the
other
> > side. So it wasn't all bad. :-)
> It led to greater female emancipation (and lack of a positive birth rate -
> which is NOT so good for a population) and well, it didn't lead to racial
> equality - it led to ANTI EUROPEAN racism to the point of "it's OK to
> destroy European cultures."
That is probably different in the USA. In Germany we don't have to deal with
a lot of Anti European racism and the 60ies movement definitely increased
gender and racial tolerance.
Comm
See in.
"Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:dvssif$qfr$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
No no, since later you bring up small differences, within one species of
chimp say, Goodall found considerable differences in personalities between
the
chimps. Even with dogs you can definitely see differences within one
breed - BIG ones too - like so big that you can't keep it as a pet, or you
can cuz it's very friendly.
>
>> Uh, heh, humans can
>> switch to a polygamic society from.... huh? Try it. See how fast human
>> society locks up the polygamist! There may not NOW be a horde of chimps
>> practicing monogamy - but that is not to say that there once wasn't - or
>> that there couldn't be. One has to research: when did monogamy START
> among
>> homo sapiens? We know quite well that ancient societies were not
>> monogamous. Imo, it's outside human nature to be monogamous - I offer
> human
>> behavior and human conceptions as proof, LMAO. People have to
>> straight-jacket themselves into "not cheating." The fact that it's even
>> called "cheating" , that "cheating" is a concept people have, is a good
>> point.
>
> We may not be monogamous in the strictest sense of the word, but neither
> are
> we polygamous in the strict sense of the word. You will hardly find any
> group of humans where overt promiscuity is accepted. Instead you will find
> both men and women trying to control and inhibit possible sex partners of
> their spouses as much as possible.
That's because of the child thing - the family unit thing.
>
>> > Maybe we got different concepts of what we consider a *BIG* variation?
>
>> I think we do. I see too many similarities where you are seeing BIG
>> differences. There is a big variation in behavior if you compare mammals
>> and reptiles. But it's just big, it's not BIG (note capital letters).
> Yet
>> there are people that are more like reptiles in behavior - and other
> humans
>> do notice it and well, they call them names, like "snake, "reptilian
>> coldness," etc. LOL. Now there is a BIG variation in behavior if you
>> compare invertebrates to vertebrates - but then there are also
> similarities.
>> And for the BIG BIG variation, compare mammals to fungi. I tend to see
>> other living creatures as people - keep that in mind. I look at them,
> they
>> look back at me - and there is recognition - "we are that same thing - we
>> are two outer forms OF the same thing." I think I'm speaking spiritually
>> now, but for me, this is eye-ball obvious. I see it. I had that
> experience
>> with a worm, as a kid. Definitely with cats and dogs.
>
> Since this is sci.anthropology, the "small" differences of humans matter.
> :-)
Well then, small differences in chimps too - and dogs of the same breed and
so forth.
I seriously doubt that the genes make you poor breeders. It's purely
CULTURAL, I think. People have choices now, women have choices now. They
didn't before.
The fact that we
> are some kind of "top dogs" now will not help us at all, evolutionarywise.
I hope you remain top dogs! Either that, or civilization is lost.
>
>> >> Or perhaps there was some mutation that got selected in favor of.
>> >> Like
> a
>> >> mutation for pale skin. Got any idea how many must have died from
> Ricketts
>> >> first? LOTS, I would assume. For instance, in vastly different
> climates
>> >> where smarts are a MUST or you just are too stupid to make it, people
> start
>> >> selecting mates according to how smart they are, how intuitive they
> are -
>> >> instead of how strong they are. That right there would make a BIG
> change
>> >> in a few generations - caused by climate pressures.
>
> Oh sorry, I think I used the wrong term. I meant 'cute' in the sense of
> 'smart', NOT in the sense of 'sweet-looking'.
> All the following is based on the misunderstanding of the word 'cute'.
Well, cute the way I meant it also applies. More foetalized or neotanized -
more cute - that's how humans see it.
>
>> Since the agrarian times and patriarchy, women have NOT been the ones to
>> choose male mates. Such was either chosen for them by older people,
>> parents - or men chose.
>
> I think that was not generally so, and women had SOME choice in many
> cases,
> though not to the same degree as men. Compared to hunter-gatherers, he
> female options mostly were diminished, but not everywhere completely lost.
I'm not so sure about that. TODAY women have choices.
>
>
> Again, this is based on my misleading use of the word 'cute'. Replace it
> with 'smart' and maybe you can agree with me.
I'm not so sure men go after smarter women - especially women smarter than
they are.
>
> I didn't mean to say that European or Asian climate was more stable than
> African climate. What I intended to say was that people were not
> "catapulted" into different climate zones like modern humans which board a
> plane in Anchorage and disembark in Mexico City. For the most time of
> history, people used to travel and migrate SLOWLY, so their bodies had
> time
> to adapt.
Imo, there is nothing slow about weather that goes from 96 degrees to 40
degrees in one day - which I just experienced here. Their bodies did not
adapt - they learned to make warm clothing!
Hold on - those Spanish people were originally visigoths! They were Gemanic
people. LOTS of Germans are where I am, btw. Canadians too.
> Fixing the problem of bad physical adaption by medical means is a quite
> recent solution.
Yes. Western civilization's medical means, indeed!
I think others thought of the same thing down the way. It's called SEXUAL
SELECTION! The black Moslems have a legend about a guy that did this -
where did the legend come from ? I don't know.
>
>
> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. :-)
> Most humans appreciate looks which are not too different from their own
> face
> in the mirror. Of course, to date someone of a different color has a lot
> of
> sex appeal, but those who walk that path are a minority in most places.
Agree. To date someone of a different color has no sex appeal to some
people, Sylvia. It the person looks cute to them, the color doesn't matter.
The point is, oftentimes with the "different color" comes a whole set of
features that most European people and Asian people think are UGLY. The
features I just listed that I find gorgeous are not to be found among
African people. Some Europeans have it! Some Asians (but not all) have it.
I've seen Scandinavians with that look I like. Slavs too, lots of them.
>
>
Comm
>
> "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:d0oTf.15019$S25....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> Hi, see in. I'm snipping a lot .
>> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
>> news:dvi4f9$s5$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
>> > "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>> > news:ijMQf.10293$S25....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>> > Well, I wouldn't call it 'bullshit' generally. Honor translates to
>> > reputation, and it can make a difference on a person's status, job,
> income,
>> > mating partners - you name it. People usually have a REASON to care
> about
>> > honor.
>
>> Well, a society that sees an individual tied up with all that other
>> extraneous stuff is imo - DUMB. If people have to worry 24/7 about
>> reputation - then where is freedom? The people in that society would be
>> ruled by fear. That's my point, it's why I call it bullshit.
>
> When people care about honor/ face/ reputation, it doesn't necessarily
> mean
> they are 24/7 worried about it. It doesn't even mean they give up all
> their
> freedom for it - yet they probably give up things which pose a threat to
> their idea of a good reputation. It's just about priorities.
The few times I saw people give up stuff they wanted (regarding marriage,
love) it was pure bullshit - predestined to lead to disaster too. Self
destructive in the extreme. with other things, th ey either give up on it
and then RESENT it - or they sneak around and do it in secret - learning to
LIE thru their teeth to everyone they know. As I said - bullshit.
>
>> >> PC is draconian tyranny where everyone learns better methods of lying
> to
>> >> everyone and scheming. It's Big Brother.
>
>> > PC may have been an invention of good intentions - rules to provide
> RESPECT
>> > in human communication. But more and more it has overrun its aims, and
>> > turned into tyranny, yes.
>
>> It has become a vehicle by which non-Europeans TRASH Europeans - and
> that's
>> OK.
>
> Europe has always been a battlefield of concepts - particularly Germany,
> since it's placed in the heart of Europe and almost every migration
> movement
> leaves its marks. We did a lot of bullying in the past, and today we are -
> well, a little more reluctant. We can no longer expect other people to
> consider us as superior in any way, so we have to deal with *THEIR*
> concepts
> of social rules. PC is some kind of backlash of our arrogance in the past.
> Me must try to find a new equilibrium.
PC is bullshit.
>
>> > Okay, but this doesn't explain why in some societies gender
> relationships
>> > are more or less egalitarian, while in others women suffer harsh
>> > suppression. I'm talking about societies of comparable standards of
>> > development, not First world vs Third world societies.
>
>> You sure about that? Seems to me that the most modern First World
> countries
>> have the most gender equality. The most backward crapholes of countries
> in
>> what we call Third World do not. Their values are mideval.
>
> What I meant is that Third World countries are not all the same when it
> comes to women's rights. And my question is, "Why are some Third World
> countries more macho dominated than others?"
I think they all are - maybe because they are stuck in a primitive stage.
>
>> >> > This way, for females it is most important to have the freedom of
> choice,
>> >> > and that's why I wonder why women could let happen such things like
> in
>> >> > Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan where women have practically no say of
> who will
>> >> > be the father of their babies.
>
>> >> Women let it happen? Heh, men are bigger and stronger than them.
> Think
>> >> again. Macho is a bully culture, no matter who does it.
>
>> > Yes, but like I said above - it didn't happen everywhere to the same
>> > degree.
>
>> Yes it did at one time. Only very recently do women in First World
>> countries have equality. Maybe you don't realize how RECENT this First
>> World mentality is. VERY recent. Women didn't even have the right to
> vote
>> in the USA until relatively recently!
>
> I am aware of that. Equal gender rights are hard to be found, and Europe
> and
> America made no exception until recently. BUT: female status was not
> EVERYWHERE as low as it still is today in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. It
> may not be a bed of roses for females in the Philippines or Ecuador, but I
> guess you would admit that they are comparably better off there.
Maybe, not sure. You don't hear about things that go on regarding gender
stuff except in the two Middle East countries.
>
>> > There must be something which 'triggers' and supports macho behavior,
> and
>> > there must be something which supports female influence.
>
>> Sure - a reason to select in favor of bullyish, brutish people instead of
>> intelligence and peaceful natures. Some of the men of these brutish
>> cultures have measurably more testosterone than other men - see website
> and
>> posts of James Michael Howard for ALL you could want to know about
>> testosterone. What supported female influence in First World countries
>> was - heh, that same old Cultural Marxism that we also have much to rail
>> against. It's really something very recent.
>
> Yes, testosterone levels may play a role here. Still we are left with the
> question why some societies seem to breed in favor of higher testosterone
> levels and some prefer the low-testosterone guys.
Because they are stuck in the same old alpha male chimp evolutarionary
stage, I think. They have not evolved PAST that. Are these people also
stupider? I think so.
Sylvia Knörr
> See in (I have to scroll down about 1000 posts on here to find this
thread!
> See in.
Maybe try a search engine next time? :-))
Next to humans, chimps probably have the largest extent of variations, but I
suppose you won't find a clan of gorillas which chose to practise monogamy.
Dogs are a different thing altogether, since mostly they are not free to
pick their mates. It's humans who do the selection for them.
> >> Uh, heh, humans can
> >> switch to a polygamic society from.... huh? Try it. See how fast
human
> >> society locks up the polygamist! There may not NOW be a horde of
chimps
> >> practicing monogamy - but that is not to say that there once wasn't -
or
> >> that there couldn't be. One has to research: when did monogamy START
> >> among homo sapiens? We know quite well that ancient societies were not
> >> monogamous. Imo, it's outside human nature to be monogamous - I offer
> >> human behavior and human conceptions as proof, LMAO. People have to
> >> straight-jacket themselves into "not cheating." The fact that it's
even
> >> called "cheating" , that "cheating" is a concept people have, is a good
> >> point.
> > We may not be monogamous in the strictest sense of the word, but neither
> > are we polygamous in the strict sense of the word. You will hardly find
any
> > group of humans where overt promiscuity is accepted. Instead you will
find
> > both men and women trying to control and inhibit possible sex partners
of
> > their spouses as much as possible.
> That's because of the child thing - the family unit thing.
Exactly. Exclusive partnerships over many years obviously serves this
purpose best.
Correct. But if we go extinct, what difference does it make whether it's for
genetic or for cultural reasons? :-))
> > The fact that we
> > are some kind of "top dogs" now will not help us at all,
evolutionarywise.
> I hope you remain top dogs! Either that, or civilization is lost.
I don't think civilization generally would be lost, just a part of it. Like
the body is not lost when you amputate an arm or a leg.
Although it makes me sad that the fruits of our culture, (like Mozart's
music or Shakespeare's dramas or Einstein's theories) might fall into
oblivion, I can imagine a future mankind with quite different memes and
values. But I have reason to believe that the Chinese might take over, and I
hope they can appreciate at least PART of our cultural achievements.
> >> >> Or perhaps there was some mutation that got selected in favor of.
Like
> >> >> a mutation for pale skin. Got any idea how many must have died from
> >> >> Ricketts first? LOTS, I would assume. For instance, in vastly
different
> >> >> climates where smarts are a MUST or you just are too stupid to make
it, people
> >> >> start selecting mates according to how smart they are, how intuitive
they
> >> >> are - instead of how strong they are. That right there would make a
BIG
> >> >> change in a few generations - caused by climate pressures.
> > Oh sorry, I think I used the wrong term. I meant 'cute' in the sense of
> > 'smart', NOT in the sense of 'sweet-looking'.
> > All the following is based on the misunderstanding of the word 'cute'.
> Well, cute the way I meant it also applies. More foetalized or
neotanized -
> more cute - that's how humans see it.
Yes, but I think men are more prone to prefering neotanized traits in mating
partners than women are.
> >> Since the agrarian times and patriarchy, women have NOT been the ones
to
> >> choose male mates. Such was either chosen for them by older people,
> >> parents - or men chose.
> > I think that was not generally so, and women had SOME choice in many
cases,
> > though not to the same degree as men. Compared to hunter-gatherers, he
> > female options mostly were diminished, but not everywhere completely
lost.
> I'm not so sure about that. TODAY women have choices.
In matrilocal societies women surely had more of a choice than in patrilocal
ones, though it may not have been the wide range of choices we enjoy TODAY.
> > Again, this is based on my misleading use of the word 'cute'. Replace it
> > with 'smart' and maybe you can agree with me.
> I'm not so sure men go after smarter women - especially women smarter than
> they are.
No no, I meant it the other way - women go after smart men.
Men usually want good looking women, rather than smart ones. Most men would
resent it if their wife is much smarter than they are. :-))
> > I didn't mean to say that European or Asian climate was more stable than
> > African climate. What I intended to say was that people were not
> > "catapulted" into different climate zones like modern humans which board
a
> > plane in Anchorage and disembark in Mexico City. For the most time of
> > history, people used to travel and migrate SLOWLY, so their bodies had
> > time to adapt.
> Imo, there is nothing slow about weather that goes from 96 degrees to 40
> degrees in one day - which I just experienced here. Their bodies did not
> adapt - they learned to make warm clothing!
Don't confuse climate and weather!
> > Of course people KNEW what climate they can deal with, so by and large
> > they tried to stay on the same latitude if possible - when Europeans
settled on
> > the American continent, they almost automatically chose their
> > destinations:
> > British, French and Germans in North America, Spanish and Portuguese in
> > South America (with some exceptions nonwithstanding).
> Hold on - those Spanish people were originally visigoths! They were
Gemanic
> people. LOTS of Germans are where I am, btw. Canadians too.
Sure there are people who left their original climate zone for another one,
I was talking of the BULK of people.
> > Fixing the problem of bad physical adaption by medical means is a quite
> > recent solution.
> Yes. Western civilization's medical means, indeed!
The first Europeans who came to the American continent didn't have these
remedies, so they settled in areas where they felt comfortable. The African
slaves didn't have a choice where to live back then, and I guess lots of
them died just because they couldn't cope with their surrounding climate.
Huh? What legend do you mean? That guy who allegedly had dozens of wives and
hundreds of children?
> > Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. :-)
> > Most humans appreciate looks which are not too different from their own
> > face in the mirror. Of course, to date someone of a different color has
a lot
> > of sex appeal, but those who walk that path are a minority in most
places.
> Agree. To date someone of a different color has no sex appeal to some
> people, Sylvia. It the person looks cute to them, the color doesn't
matter.
That's true, except if there are some taboos involved.
> The point is, oftentimes with the "different color" comes a whole set of
> features that most European people and Asian people think are UGLY. The
> features I just listed that I find gorgeous are not to be found among
> African people. Some Europeans have it! Some Asians (but not all) have
it.
> I've seen Scandinavians with that look I like. Slavs too, lots of them.
Nevertheless there are Europeans who love African features. I personally
know a woman (blonde and blue eyed BTW) who always was attracted to men from
Ghana, though all these relationships failed. There must have been some kind
of "exotic sex appeal" at work. :-)
Comm
> "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:lsdWf.7787$x94....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> See in (I have to scroll down about 1000 posts on here to find this
> thread!
>> See in.
>
> Maybe try a search engine next time? :-))
I use a newsreader.
>
>
>> That's because of the child thing - the family unit thing.
>
> Exactly. Exclusive partnerships over many years obviously serves this
> purpose best.
Uh, Chinese were polygamous for most of their long history. I'm not sure
about now - I doubt it now since they adopted Marxism and such.
>
>
> I don't think civilization generally would be lost, just a part of it.
> Like
> the body is not lost when you amputate an arm or a leg.
> Although it makes me sad that the fruits of our culture, (like Mozart's
> music or Shakespeare's dramas or Einstein's theories) might fall into
> oblivion, I can imagine a future mankind with quite different memes and
> values. But I have reason to believe that the Chinese might take over, and
> I
> hope they can appreciate at least PART of our cultural achievements.
Chinese are in general smarter than Europeans. I think they'd keep it - and
expand on it.
>
-
>> where did the legend come from ? I don't know.
>
> Huh? What legend do you mean? That guy who allegedly had dozens of wives
> and
> hundreds of children?
Yakub on the island of Patmos I think - they say he was a doctor who bread
whiter and whiter people. Black Moslems have this legend.
>
>> The point is, oftentimes with the "different color" comes a whole set of
>> features that most European people and Asian people think are UGLY. The
>> features I just listed that I find gorgeous are not to be found among
>> African people. Some Europeans have it! Some Asians (but not all) have
> it.
>> I've seen Scandinavians with that look I like. Slavs too, lots of them.
>
> Nevertheless there are Europeans who love African features. I personally
> know a woman (blonde and blue eyed BTW) who always was attracted to men
> from
> Ghana, though all these relationships failed. There must have been some
> kind
> of "exotic sex appeal" at work. :-)
Well, some women want to have sex with dogs too. LOL. That's really a
minority of people.
>
>
>
Sylvia Knörr
> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:e07371$uki$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
> > "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:d0oTf.15019$S25....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >> Hi, see in. I'm snipping a lot .
> >> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> >> news:dvi4f9$s5$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
> >> Well, a society that sees an individual tied up with all that other
> >> extraneous stuff is imo - DUMB. If people have to worry 24/7 about
> >> reputation - then where is freedom? The people in that society would
be
> >> ruled by fear. That's my point, it's why I call it bullshit.
> > When people care about honor/ face/ reputation, it doesn't necessarily
> > mean
> > they are 24/7 worried about it. It doesn't even mean they give up all
> > their
> > freedom for it - yet they probably give up things which pose a threat to
> > their idea of a good reputation. It's just about priorities.
> The few times I saw people give up stuff they wanted (regarding marriage,
> love) it was pure bullshit - predestined to lead to disaster too. Self
> destructive in the extreme. with other things, th ey either give up on it
> and then RESENT it - or they sneak around and do it in secret - learning
to
> LIE thru their teeth to everyone they know. As I said - bullshit.
It's sure better to follow your heart instead of living in a lie. But I
understand that people sometimes make the wrong decision and then don't know
how to fix it. Or their decision is some kind of sacrifice for a higher aim.
> >> > Okay, but this doesn't explain why in some societies gender
relationships
> >> > are more or less egalitarian, while in others women suffer harsh
> >> > suppression. I'm talking about societies of comparable standards of
> >> > development, not First world vs Third world societies.
> >> You sure about that? Seems to me that the most modern First World
countries
> >> have the most gender equality. The most backward crapholes of
countries
> >> in what we call Third World do not. Their values are mideval.
> > What I meant is that Third World countries are not all the same when it
> > comes to women's rights. And my question is, "Why are some Third World
> > countries more macho dominated than others?"
> I think they all are - maybe because they are stuck in a primitive stage.
We should be glad that in our western societies women have (almost) equal
rights, but we must not forget that this is only for the last 50+ years.
Wealth, education and contraceptives allowed us to enjoy more freedom than
our sisters in less fortunate nations.
If we want to help poverty stricken nations, we best start with the women -
when they are doing fine, the rest will fall into place.
> > I am aware of that. Equal gender rights are hard to be found, and Europe
> > and America made no exception until recently. BUT: female status was not
> > EVERYWHERE as low as it still is today in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia.
It
> > may not be a bed of roses for females in the Philippines or Ecuador, but
I
> > guess you would admit that they are comparably better off there.
> Maybe, not sure. You don't hear about things that go on regarding gender
> stuff except in the two Middle East countries.
I do have some first hand information, that's why I say that women are
better off in the Philippines or Ecuador. Trying to find a common
denominator, it's RELIGION which comes into picture. I cannot help but think
that women are doing somewhat worse in Islam dominated nations.
> >> > There must be something which 'triggers' and supports macho behavior,
> >> > and there must be something which supports female influence.
> >> Sure - a reason to select in favor of bullyish, brutish people instead
of
> >> intelligence and peaceful natures. Some of the men of these brutish
> >> cultures have measurably more testosterone than other men - see website
> >> and posts of James Michael Howard for ALL you could want to know about
> >> testosterone. What supported female influence in First World countries
> >> was - heh, that same old Cultural Marxism that we also have much to
rail
> >> against. It's really something very recent.
> > Yes, testosterone levels may play a role here. Still we are left with
the
> > question why some societies seem to breed in favor of higher
testosterone
> > levels and some prefer the low-testosterone guys.
> Because they are stuck in the same old alpha male chimp evolutarionary
> stage, I think. They have not evolved PAST that. Are these people also
> stupider? I think so.
Yet they may outnumber 'us' within a few generations. Not that I like it,
but they might be the ones who laugh last.
Comm
>
> "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:lsdWf.7788$x94....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> understand that people sometimes make the wrong decision and then don't
> know
how to fix it. Or their decision is some kind of sacrifice for a higher
aim.
There is no higher aim if it involved The Lie.
>
>
>> I think they all are - maybe because they are stuck in a primitive stage.
>
> We should be glad that in our western societies women have (almost) equal
> rights, but we must not forget that this is only for the last 50+ years.
> Wealth, education and contraceptives allowed us to enjoy more freedom than
> our sisters in less fortunate nations.
> If we want to help poverty stricken nations, we best start with the
> women -
> when they are doing fine, the rest will fall into place.
War Against Women - by Marylin French - read it. The problem is that when
women from 1st world try to help these 3rd world women, it's too often the
WOMEN that turn against 1st world women. Eh, so fuck them. They need to
help themselves in their own cultures. We need to STOP interfering.
>
>> > I am aware of that. Equal gender rights are hard to be found, and
>> > Europe
>> > and America made no exception until recently. BUT: female status was
>> > not
>> > EVERYWHERE as low as it still is today in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia.
> It
>> > may not be a bed of roses for females in the Philippines or Ecuador,
>> > but
> I
>> > guess you would admit that they are comparably better off there.
>
>> Maybe, not sure. You don't hear about things that go on regarding gender
>> stuff except in the two Middle East countries.
>
> I do have some first hand information, that's why I say that women are
> better off in the Philippines or Ecuador. Trying to find a common
> denominator, it's RELIGION which comes into picture. I cannot help but
> think
> that women are doing somewhat worse in Islam dominated nations.
Sure - that's because in Christian nations, which are mostly only MARGINALLY
Christian today by the way, the traditions were fought against tooth and
nail, fang and claw. And yes, the Frankfurt School and that type DID help
when it came to that! Sure they did. ALL the progress came from the Far
Left. But for the last few decades, all the SHIT has come from the Far
Left. See Bertrand Russel "Why I'm not a Christian" and consider when he
wrote that. He spoke for his times. Consider, Germany used to be the
Second Reich - or the Holy Roman Empire! The Inquisition was the WORST
there. But it was the Germans THEMSELVES that modernized, got smarter, more
progressive. Someone from outside didn't hand them progress on a plate.
>
>
>> > Yes, testosterone levels may play a role here. Still we are left with
> the
>> > question why some societies seem to breed in favor of higher
> testosterone
>> > levels and some prefer the low-testosterone guys.
Because in those societies it is advantageous to have a STRONG MAN for a
husband. It's not that the man have low testosterone - they just don't have
as HIGH LEVELS of it. It's a known fact that testosterone is linked with
violence. Men commit most violence. Men with more T commit MORE violence.
You really need to read James Michael Howard's website - he has ALL the data
on T. ALL of it, from medical journals, too. It might explain the whys,
too.
>
This here is MY explanation - which is imo, kinda obvious:
>> Because they are stuck in the same old alpha male chimp evolutarionary
>> stage, I think. They have not evolved PAST that. Are these people also
>> stupider? I think so.
>
> Yet they may outnumber 'us' within a few generations. Not that I like it,
> but they might be the ones who laugh last.
You never know. Given that there could be a LINE DRAWN for levels of T,
given that some people are quite adept at making bio-warfare - and other
such "targetting" weapons - the problem COULD be solved if someone wanted to
do it. I heard that from a Russian that used to work in chemical warfare -
that is, some of these weapons already EXIST.
What is MALadaptive for the planet is population breeding too much - unable
to feed themselves. What is also MALadaptive when confronted with those
populations - is European populations NOT breeding enough - or at least
using their technolgoy to heh, DO something about those others. Yeah, I
know what that sounds like.
I fear this: the END of Western Civilization in the West and in the USA.
That's going to come - UNLESS something really drastic happens - and I mean
drastic like what happened in Germany when things got THAT bad. European
countries might have to go that way - push is COMING to shove, Sylvia.
Maybe not that drastic in the BIG BIG USA. Just Pat Buchannan for the USA
would do fine. I th ink you don't appreaciate, that states in the USA are
like countries in Europe - they are BIG.
>
>
Sylvia Knörr
> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:e0hum7$u8r$03$1...@news.t-online.com...
> > "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:lsdWf.7787$x94....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> That's because of the child thing - the family unit thing.
> > Exactly. Exclusive partnerships over many years obviously serves this
> > purpose best.
> Uh, Chinese were polygamous for most of their long history. I'm not sure
> about now - I doubt it now since they adopted Marxism and such.
Are you sure about the Chinese generally having been polygamous? I thought
Chinese are a quite diverse lot and only SOME of them practiced polygamy.
> > I don't think civilization generally would be lost, just a part of it.
> > Like the body is not lost when you amputate an arm or a leg.
> > Although it makes me sad that the fruits of our culture, (like Mozart's
> > music or Shakespeare's dramas or Einstein's theories) might fall into
> > oblivion, I can imagine a future mankind with quite different memes and
> > values. But I have reason to believe that the Chinese might take over,
and
> > I hope they can appreciate at least PART of our cultural achievements.
> Chinese are in general smarter than Europeans. I think they'd keep it -
and
> expand on it.
Yes, chances are good that the Chinese would preserve some of the European
cultural heritage (which is more like a GLOBAL heritage now).
> >> where did the legend come from ? I don't know.
> > Huh? What legend do you mean? That guy who allegedly had dozens of wives
> > and hundreds of children?
> Yakub on the island of Patmos I think - they say he was a doctor who bread
> whiter and whiter people. Black Moslems have this legend.
Never heard about it. But the problem of DELIBERATELY breeding humans is the
fact that it takes around 20 years for a SINGLE generation. And with every
generation, the idea of which are the target traits to breed out will
change.
Unless cloning becomes a viable method, human 'breeding programs' will
remain single attempts tried by some lunatic fanatics.
> >> The point is, oftentimes with the "different color" comes a whole set
of
> >> features that most European people and Asian people think are UGLY. The
> >> features I just listed that I find gorgeous are not to be found among
> >> African people. Some Europeans have it! Some Asians (but not all)
have
> >> it.
> >> I've seen Scandinavians with that look I like. Slavs too, lots of
them.
> > Nevertheless there are Europeans who love African features. I personally
> > know a woman (blonde and blue eyed BTW) who always was attracted to men
> > from Ghana, though all these relationships failed. There must have been
some
> > kind of "exotic sex appeal" at work. :-)
> Well, some women want to have sex with dogs too. LOL. That's really a
> minority of people.
Now now, sex with animals is really SICK in my book, but interracial sex is
not. In fact, I appreciate interracial relationships, because that's what
keeps the gene pool alive and flowing.
Comm
>
> "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:GfkXf.9815$x94....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> about now - I doubt it now since they adopted Marxism and such.
>
> Are you sure about the Chinese generally having been polygamous? I thought
> Chinese are a quite diverse lot and only SOME of them practiced polygamy.
Yes, it's in Confucius. For thousands of years, they were polygamous. I'm
surprised you don't know this!
Sylvia - it's part of the Nation of Islam RELIGION to believe this. They
believe whites are blue-eyed devils - cave people.
Uh, forget cloning. The way to have kids that more likely resemble YOU is
to marry someone that's the same nationality - or at least the same race.
I think that the European people are enough outbred to be healthy - and they
ARE the people that created Western Civilization. No other people created
it - and there is no reason to assume they CAN create it - or even preserve
it. The Chinese could. But there are others that, imo, can only destroy
it. I have eyes. I've seen.
>> >> The point is, oftentimes with the "different color" comes a whole set
> of
>> >> features that most European people and Asian people think are UGLY.
>> >> The
>> >> features I just listed that I find gorgeous are not to be found among
>> >> African people. Some Europeans have it! Some Asians (but not all)
> have
>> >> it.
>> >> I've seen Scandinavians with that look I like. Slavs too, lots of
> them.
>
>> > Nevertheless there are Europeans who love African features. I
>> > personally
>> > know a woman (blonde and blue eyed BTW) who always was attracted to men
>> > from Ghana, though all these relationships failed. There must have been
> some
>> > kind of "exotic sex appeal" at work. :-)
>
>> Well, some women want to have sex with dogs too. LOL. That's really a
>> minority of people.
>
> Now now, sex with animals is really SICK in my book, but interracial sex
> is
> not. In fact, I appreciate interracial relationships, because that's what
> keeps the gene pool alive and flowing.
The gene pool is just fine in China - where everyone is CHINESE. Same for
Europe. I'm just pointing out that the girl you know is NOT represented by
any majority. There are probably more pedophiles out there (real ones, sex
with LITTLE kids) than there are people into black/white relationships.
Ewww, that's a horrifying thought. But take the USA. You can get a dog or
cat adopted - and that costs THOUSANDS with all the shots and licenses and
shit, before you can get the many black baby orphans adopted. They are AS
unwanted as people with severe handicaps. It's against the law to advertise
"white baby" and people couldn't just go and say they wanted a non-black
baby. So that ruined the adoption business. That led the way to private
adoptions (where the mother gets paid about 30 thousand for the baby!) So
now you have "RUSSIAN babies" - and lots of people adopt them. Meanwhile,
some white trash girl left a baby in a parking lot a few years back, just a
few hours old. Phone calls came in from the entire USA with people willing
to pay tens of thousands to adopt the baby. Thousands of calls. And
thousands of black babies are there, ready to be adopted. They are
unwanted. That's just the way it is, Sylvia. You can't make people LIKE
something. It's not possible.
The most AWFUL shit I heard of, taken from the news it was made into a TV
drama. It was shocking, chilling in horror. This white couple adopts a black
kid - he's a nice kid too. So about a year later there is a school shooting
and the kid gets killed. As things transpire, the parents contracted some
skin head to kill the boy and make it look like a random school shooting -
after they took out a HUGE life insurance policy on him. DAMN. Just
showing shit like that on the TV - it could give people ideas - people do
strange shit over money.
>
>
Sylvia Knörr
> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:e0mt0o$ulm$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
> > "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:lsdWf.7788$x94....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > It's sure better to follow your heart instead of living in a lie. But I
> > understand that people sometimes make the wrong decision and then don't
> > know how to fix it. Or their decision is some kind of sacrifice for a
higher
> > aim.
> There is no higher aim if it involved The Lie.
To make sacrifices for the next generation could be a valid aim.
> >> I think they all are - maybe because they are stuck in a primitive
stage.
> > We should be glad that in our western societies women have (almost)
equal
> > rights, but we must not forget that this is only for the last 50+ years.
> > Wealth, education and contraceptives allowed us to enjoy more freedom
than
> > our sisters in less fortunate nations.
> > If we want to help poverty stricken nations, we best start with the
> > women - when they are doing fine, the rest will fall into place.
> War Against Women - by Marylin French - read it. The problem is that when
> women from 1st world try to help these 3rd world women, it's too often the
> WOMEN that turn against 1st world women. Eh, so fuck them. They need to
> help themselves in their own cultures. We need to STOP interfering.
First world should only interfere when the help is welcome by a greater
number of the receiptors. We should not shove our concepts down their
throats.
I was thinking of low-level aid, like mini-loans for women to start a
small-scale business. That isn't a handout, because it has to be paid back
with (albeit low) interests. Seems to be a fair and pragmatic concept.
> >> > I am aware of that. Equal gender rights are hard to be found, and
Europe
> >> > and America made no exception until recently. BUT: female status was
not
> >> > EVERYWHERE as low as it still is today in Afghanistan or Saudi
Arabia.
> >> > It may not be a bed of roses for females in the Philippines or
Ecuador,
> >> > but I guess you would admit that they are comparably better off
there.
> >> Maybe, not sure. You don't hear about things that go on regarding
gender
> >> stuff except in the two Middle East countries.
> > I do have some first hand information, that's why I say that women are
> > better off in the Philippines or Ecuador. Trying to find a common
> > denominator, it's RELIGION which comes into picture. I cannot help but
> > think that women are doing somewhat worse in Islam dominated nations.
> Sure - that's because in Christian nations, which are mostly only
MARGINALLY
> Christian today by the way, the traditions were fought against tooth and
> nail, fang and claw.
But I still think that some cultures had more gender fairness TO BEGIN
WITH - long before they became Christians or Muslims.
> And yes, the Frankfurt School and that type DID help
> when it came to that! Sure they did. ALL the progress came from the Far
> Left. But for the last few decades, all the SHIT has come from the Far
> Left. See Bertrand Russel "Why I'm not a Christian" and consider when he
> wrote that. He spoke for his times. Consider, Germany used to be the
> Second Reich - or the Holy Roman Empire! The Inquisition was the WORST
> there. But it was the Germans THEMSELVES that modernized, got smarter,
more
> progressive. Someone from outside didn't hand them progress on a plate.
This is one major key to it - people cherish what they have worked and
FOUGHT for, not what was given to them without raising a finger. This is why
democracies in France, Germany or USA are less vulnerable than in countries
where democracy was first introduced by some colonial masters.
> >> > Yes, testosterone levels may play a role here. Still we are left with
> >> > the question why some societies seem to breed in favor of higher
> >> > testosterone levels and some prefer the low-testosterone guys.
> Because in those societies it is advantageous to have a STRONG MAN for a
> husband. It's not that the man have low testosterone - they just don't
have
> as HIGH LEVELS of it. It's a known fact that testosterone is linked with
> violence. Men commit most violence. Men with more T commit MORE
violence.
> You really need to read James Michael Howard's website - he has ALL the
data
> on T. ALL of it, from medical journals, too. It might explain the whys,
> too.
Testosterone levels are surely crucial for MANY things in humans (and
non-humans).
> This here is MY explanation - which is imo, kinda obvious:
> >> Because they are stuck in the same old alpha male chimp evolutarionary
> >> stage, I think. They have not evolved PAST that. Are these people
also
> >> stupider? I think so.
> > Yet they may outnumber 'us' within a few generations. Not that I like
it,
> > but they might be the ones who laugh last.
> You never know. Given that there could be a LINE DRAWN for levels of T,
> given that some people are quite adept at making bio-warfare - and other
> such "targetting" weapons - the problem COULD be solved if someone wanted
to
> do it. I heard that from a Russian that used to work in chemical
arfare -
> that is, some of these weapons already EXIST.
A disturbing thought...
> What is MALadaptive for the planet is population breeding too much -
unable
> to feed themselves. What is also MALadaptive when confronted with those
> populations - is European populations NOT breeding enough - or at least
> using their technolgoy to heh, DO something about those others. Yeah, I
> know what that sounds like.
To address this problem is surely like entering a mine field of political
correctness. :-)
> I fear this: the END of Western Civilization in the West and in the USA.
> That's going to come - UNLESS something really drastic happens - and I
mean
> drastic like what happened in Germany when things got THAT bad. European
> countries might have to go that way - push is COMING to shove, Sylvia.
Still, I hope mankind has learned enough from past atrocities that we don't
make the same mistakes again.
> Maybe not that drastic in the BIG BIG USA. Just Pat Buchannan for the USA
> would do fine. I th ink you don't appreaciate, that states in the USA are
> like countries in Europe - they are BIG.
Yes, USA is a bit like Europe - on a larger scale.
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch
>
> "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:VQXXf.11478$Bj7....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
>> news:e0mt0o$ulm$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
>> > "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>> > news:lsdWf.7788$x94....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>> > It's sure better to follow your heart instead of living in a lie. But I
>> > understand that people sometimes make the wrong decision and then don't
>> > know how to fix it. Or their decision is some kind of sacrifice for a
> higher
>> > aim.
>
See "living in bad faith."
Sartre, J-P. Being & Nothingness, Chapter II.
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch
>> War Against Women - by Marylin French - read it. The problem is that
>> when
>> women from 1st world try to help these 3rd world women, it's too often
>> the
>> WOMEN that turn against 1st world women. Eh, so fuck them. They need to
>> help themselves in their own cultures. We need to STOP interfering.
>
> First world should only interfere when the help is welcome by a greater
> number of the receiptors. We should not shove our concepts down their
> throats.
> I was thinking of low-level aid, like mini-loans for women to start a
> small-scale business. That isn't a handout, because it has to be paid back
> with (albeit low) interests. Seems to be a fair and pragmatic concept.
That has actually been tried in East Asian countries like India and Pakistan
and has worked very, very well. When attempted in Africa, however, it was a
dismal failure... usually on account of the males using extreme violence
against the women.
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch
>
> "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:VQXXf.11478$Bj7....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
>> news:e0mt0o$ulm$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
>> > "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>> > news:lsdWf.7788$x94....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> This here is MY explanation - which is imo, kinda obvious:
>> >> Because they are stuck in the same old alpha male chimp evolutarionary
>> >> stage, I think. They have not evolved PAST that. Are these people
> also
>> >> stupider? I think so.
On a job interview recently, I had to go through three rounds with
individuals trying to do the "alpha male chimp" routine with me (verbally,
of course-- rather than pissing on trees [or my leg]). It was really amusing
to sit there and watch and listen to these people posturing away, trying to
make me accept that THEY are the alphas, and I'm some lowly dungheap. Two of
the interviewers were female, two were male. All four were white folks.
<shrug>
As in so many things involving human beings, YMMV.
Sylvia Knörr
> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:e11its$4j8$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
> > "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:GfkXf.9815$x94....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> Uh, Chinese were polygamous for most of their long history. I'm not
sure
> >> about now - I doubt it now since they adopted Marxism and such.
> > Are you sure about the Chinese generally having been polygamous? I
thought
> > Chinese are a quite diverse lot and only SOME of them practiced
polygamy.
> Yes, it's in Confucius. For thousands of years, they were polygamous.
I'm
> surprised you don't know this!
One of the reasons to hang around on usenet is to LEARN. :-)
> >> >> where did the legend come from ? I don't know.
> >> > Huh? What legend do you mean? That guy who allegedly had dozens of
> >> > wives and hundreds of children?
> >> Yakub on the island of Patmos I think - they say he was a doctor who
> >> bread whiter and whiter people. Black Moslems have this legend.
> > Never heard about it. But the problem of DELIBERATELY breeding humans is
> > the fact that it takes around 20 years for a SINGLE generation. And with
every
> > generation, the idea of which are the target traits to breed out will
> > change.
> Sylvia - it's part of the Nation of Islam RELIGION to believe this. They
> believe whites are blue-eyed devils - cave people.
Yep, I think many of them are taught and BELIEVE that non-Muslims are
primitive and EVIL. I've seen several of them on usenet and found it
difficult to get into any reasonable dialogue with them - just like
creationists and other fanatics. Some creeds seem to kill open-mindedness.
> Uh, forget cloning. The way to have kids that more likely resemble YOU is
> to marry someone that's the same nationality - or at least the same race.
No doubt, the old fashioned way to make babies is still the only thing that
really works. But it's a fact that birth rates in Europe are declining
dramatically. We have to find ways to encourage couples to raise at least 2
or 3 kids. If not, we probably deserve it to vanish from the face of the
earth.
> I think that the European people are enough outbred to be healthy - and
they
> ARE the people that created Western Civilization. No other people created
> it - and there is no reason to assume they CAN create it - or even
preserve
> it. The Chinese could. But there are others that, imo, can only destroy
> it. I have eyes. I've seen.
As for being healthy - wait a minute! Western civilization has found ways to
work around natural selection. With high class medical care, pharmaceutic
products and vaccines, we have lots of people who are not sooo very
healthy - they just live with the help of all the medical stuff and care
which is available. Natural selection is more mercyless in Third World
nations, because people who are poor simply can't afford medical aid, and
die. Hence, the survivors are REALLY robust and healthy.
Indeed a horrifying thought, and I hope that you are wrong about the
pedophile/ interracial ratio.
But take the USA. You can get a dog or
> cat adopted - and that costs THOUSANDS with all the shots and licenses and
> shit, before you can get the many black baby orphans adopted. They are AS
> unwanted as people with severe handicaps. It's against the law to
advertise
> "white baby" and people couldn't just go and say they wanted a non-black
> baby. So that ruined the adoption business. That led the way to private
> adoptions (where the mother gets paid about 30 thousand for the baby!) So
> now you have "RUSSIAN babies" - and lots of people adopt them. Meanwhile,
> some white trash girl left a baby in a parking lot a few years back, just
a
> few hours old. Phone calls came in from the entire USA with people
willing
> to pay tens of thousands to adopt the baby. Thousands of calls. And
> thousands of black babies are there, ready to be adopted. They are
> unwanted. That's just the way it is, Sylvia. You can't make people LIKE
> something. It's not possible.
In this case I think the laws have to be adjusted. You can't force love and
care. Parents who adopt a baby should have a chance to see that baby first
and reject it if they can't connect with it. A functioning family is at
large based on EMOTIONS. You can't produce proper emotions by law. A human
child is too precious to give him/ her in the hands of parents who cannot
love him/ her. This is not like buying a new car.
> The most AWFUL shit I heard of, taken from the news it was made into a TV
> drama. It was shocking, chilling in horror. This white couple adopts a
black
> kid - he's a nice kid too. So about a year later there is a school
shooting
> and the kid gets killed. As things transpire, the parents contracted some
> skin head to kill the boy and make it look like a random school shooting -
> after they took out a HUGE life insurance policy on him. DAMN. Just
> showing shit like that on the TV - it could give people ideas - people do
> strange shit over money.
There are already awful things going on, like kidnapping and killing young
people in Third Word nations to get their organs for sick rich people
waiting for transplants. It's cynical that medical methods - once invented
to SAVE human lives - lead to KILLING or mutilation of healthy people.
Sylvia Knörr
> >> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> >> news:e0mt0o$ulm$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
> >> > It's sure better to follow your heart instead of living in a lie. But
I
> >> > understand that people sometimes make the wrong decision and then
don't
> >> > know how to fix it. Or their decision is some kind of sacrifice for a
> >> > higher aim.
> See "living in bad faith."
>
> Sartre, J-P. Being & Nothingness, Chapter II.
Hm, depends on whether we believe in the existence of a "free will". Somehow
I doubt it and believe that we are slaves to our genes. Fortunately, we have
a perfect illusion of a 'free will'. :-)
Sylvia Knörr
Yes, there is no 'one size fits all'. If well-meant projects fail, we have
to accept it as a fact, no matter how sorry we feel for the victims. We
can't save each and everyone - sometimes we can't even keep a neighbor or a
friend from committing suicide. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't TRY.
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch
Then again, some of us are slaves to our jeans... usually Levi-Strauss.
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch
Indeed, there are major cultural differences between the two areas, and it
was those cultural differences that made the African attempts miserable
failures. Again, it seems to be because "we" (Americans and Europeans) just
can't seem to figure out that other people don't have the same values that
we have.
Sylvia Knörr
> >> > "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> >> > news:lsdWf.7788$x94....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> >> This here is MY explanation - which is imo, kinda obvious:
> >> >> Because they are stuck in the same old alpha male chimp
evolutarionary
> >> >> stage, I think. They have not evolved PAST that. Are these people
> >> >> also stupider? I think so.
> On a job interview recently, I had to go through three rounds with
> individuals trying to do the "alpha male chimp" routine with me (verbally,
> of course-- rather than pissing on trees [or my leg]). It was really
amusing
> to sit there and watch and listen to these people posturing away, trying
to
> make me accept that THEY are the alphas, and I'm some lowly dungheap. Two
of
> the interviewers were female, two were male. All four were white folks.
>
> <shrug>
>
> As in so many things involving human beings, YMMV.
What's your conclusion from that experience? That women eventually caught up
with men in 'doing the alpha male chimp'? Or that there never was a gender
gap?
Sylvia Knörr
Hehehe, I guess this was a typical anthropology joke. :-)
Sylvia Knörr
Though this might mean that I do the same mistake again, I suppose that it
is universal human nature to conclude that "everyone is thinking more or
less like me". We tend to generalize our personal experience. Quite often -
especially within our own cultural sphere -such thinking yields useful
results in everyday life. But it may stand in the way of intercultural
understanding. A scientific approach might be helpful then.
I admit that it's hard for me to understand why many women (especially in
Africa and Muslim societies) don't seek to escape their constraints if they
have the chance to, and even though they are offered help. But then again, I
also can't understand why people don't seek to escape drug addiction when
they are offered help. Something seems to be much stronger than rational
arguments.
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch
>
> "Aardvark J. Bandersnatch" <sumb...@micrsfot.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:YvD_f.918965$xm3.518988@attbi_s21...
>> Indeed, there are major cultural differences between the two areas, and
>> it
>> was those cultural differences that made the African attempts miserable
>> failures. Again, it seems to be because "we" (Americans and Europeans)
> just
>> can't seem to figure out that other people don't have the same values
>> that
>> we have.
>
> Though this might mean that I do the same mistake again, I suppose that it
> is universal human nature to conclude that "everyone is thinking more or
> less like me". We tend to generalize our personal experience. Quite
> often -
> especially within our own cultural sphere -such thinking yields useful
> results in everyday life. But it may stand in the way of intercultural
> understanding. A scientific approach might be helpful then.
>
> I admit that it's hard for me to understand why many women (especially in
> Africa and Muslim societies) don't seek to escape their constraints if
> they
> have the chance to, and even though they are offered help. But then again,
> I
> also can't understand why people don't seek to escape drug addiction when
> they are offered help. Something seems to be much stronger than rational
> arguments.
Sylvia,
Your comments are welcome, as always. It seems to be the case that people
try to find the best possible behavior given circumstances, as they
understand the options and as they understand the circumstances (in order to
find an optimal situation for resources, reproduction, and child-rearing).
That would be the basic premise for human Being. However, the cultural
biases are (or can be) a rather heavy filter laid on top of that. The
cultural biases color and define and limit (thank, J-P Sartre) the
possibilities that we see as well as color, define, and limit the ways in
which we see the probabilities associated with those possibilities.
Therefore, it would seem likely that African women (in certain cultural
milieus) see only certain possibilities and probabilities, while you (or I
or an Afghani woman) would see an entirely different set.
The question then becomes of understanding their concepts of themselves,
their worlds, and their possibilities. That, of course, requires careful and
sensitive research by psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists.
That's a lot of work to go through before setting up a program. Sometimes it
seems as though trail-and-error is a more effective method (overall).
Micheal.
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch
Q: How do you tell a boy chromosome from a girl chromosome?
A: You pull down its jeans.
jeans-genes, some pronunciation, different meaning -- it's a pun.
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch
Actually, Sylvia, I have no conclusion from that experience. It was just
rather amusing to sit there and observe (almost like second-hand) this
clearly simian behavior from several individuals with doctoral degrees from
highly regarded universities.
BTW, I didn't get the job... again.
Micheal.
Comm
"Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:e1c8l8$6su$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
> "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:hRlZf.1097$BS2...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> Sylvia - it's part of the Nation of Islam RELIGION to believe this. They
>> believe whites are blue-eyed devils - cave people.
>
> Yep, I think many of them are taught and BELIEVE that non-Muslims are
> primitive and EVIL. I've seen several of them on usenet and found it
> difficult to get into any reasonable dialogue with them - just like
> creationists and other fanatics. Some creeds seem to kill open-mindedness.
The Nation of Islam is BLACK Moslems. Not Middle Eastern ones at all. They
are blacks, in the USA. They are anti white.
>
>> Uh, forget cloning. The way to have kids that more likely resemble YOU
>> is
>> to marry someone that's the same nationality - or at least the same race.
>
> No doubt, the old fashioned way to make babies is still the only thing
> that
> really works. But it's a fact that birth rates in Europe are declining
> dramatically. We have to find ways to encourage couples to raise at least
> 2
> or 3 kids. If not, we probably deserve it to vanish from the face of the
> earth.
Well - sigh, I really didn't want to write a LONG winded post - so I'll try
to crunch the problems. First of all, women now have a choice - the pill,
abortion, etc. Obviously, they are going for that. Children used to be a
joy. Now they are an economic burden that lasts 18 years and they are also
a burden in general due to the molly coddling laws shoved against parents.
Example: age 7, I babysat for a baby and made money. Today, 7 year olds
have to have babbysitters! Age 9, I used to mow lawns for money, even
gas-powered mowers. No adult supervision was necessary. Today, that would
be grounds for the protection cops to take the kid away from the parents.
Age 16, my husband's grandfather owned his own cab company and hired people.
I graduated from school and had a job at that age - and of course there was
no "adult supervision" there. I took the bus there or drove there, and went
to work like an adult. Today 16 year olds are minors and parents are held
responsible for them. When I was a kid, I used to love long car rides.
Today, at the same age, I'd have been restrained and strapped down in the
car and I'd HATE that. When I was a kid, me and other kids used to spend
HOURS by ourselves, like from 9 AM in the morning to dark - maybe going home
only to make OURSELVES something to eat. NO adult supervision was required,
we'd play ball games, ride bikes, walk miles to a pool and swim, go off to
the beach. NO adult supervision was required. At age 15 I used to go 100
miles away to beachtowns, get a hotel room and stay the weekend. NO adults
present. Just me and my friends of the same age. It was NORMAL. Today,
parents are BURDENED with having to supervise every damned thing kids do -
either that or keep the kid locked up in the house. Parents do not want to
have to do such things - parents want to have a life, too. When and why did
parents get SO overprotective and molly coddling - WHO forced these insane
laws on people? Well, there you have it. TOO MANY people have opted out of
the CHORE of having a financial and emotional burden for 18 years, a burden
so bad that they can't possibly have time to have a life of their own
because they HAVE to keep on top of their kids 24/7. I was not a burden to
my parents. No kids were burdens during that time period. And this burden
IS placed on WHITE PEOPLE - THEY have to be overly "responsible." I see
black kids - and forget their parents. Way too many of them are kids that
defacto have US as their collective guardians - but we have no say in what
they do. We just have to SUPPORT them as they breed a lot - and then invade
another neighborhood and ruin it. I see Hispanics too, the illegals mostly,
they bring their kids to help them WORK, even at 3 AM in the morning. If
white people behaved like these groups - their kids would be taken away from
them. So you go figure. Who needs that kind of shit in their lives. And
who did this? Who turned the freaking society upside down?
>
>> I think that the European people are enough outbred to be healthy - and
> they
>> ARE the people that created Western Civilization. No other people
>> created
>> it - and there is no reason to assume they CAN create it - or even
> preserve
>> it. The Chinese could. But there are others that, imo, can only destroy
>> it. I have eyes. I've seen.
>
> As for being healthy - wait a minute! Western civilization has found ways
> to
> work around natural selection. With high class medical care, pharmaceutic
> products and vaccines, we have lots of people who are not sooo very
> healthy - they just live with the help of all the medical stuff and care
> which is available. Natural selection is more mercyless in Third World
> nations, because people who are poor simply can't afford medical aid, and
> die. Hence, the survivors are REALLY robust and healthy.
And the reason they are so overpopulated is due to western medicine and
health care helping them out. Actually, they aren't all that healthy at
all. They have WAY more problems than anyone in the west has.
>
>> The gene pool is just fine in China - where everyone is CHINESE. Same
>> for
>> Europe. I'm just pointing out that the girl you know is NOT represented
> by
>> any majority. There are probably more pedophiles out there (real ones,
> sex
>> with LITTLE kids) than there are people into black/white relationships.
>> Ewww, that's a horrifying thought.
>
> Indeed a horrifying thought, and I hope that you are wrong about the
> pedophile/ interracial ratio.
No, I'm not, at least when it comes to black/white interracial ratios.
Tell that to the fucking liberal pc idiots.
>
>> The most AWFUL shit I heard of, taken from the news it was made into a TV
>> drama. It was shocking, chilling in horror. This white couple adopts a
> black
>> kid - he's a nice kid too. So about a year later there is a school
> shooting
>> and the kid gets killed. As things transpire, the parents contracted
>> some
>> skin head to kill the boy and make it look like a random school
>> shooting -
>> after they took out a HUGE life insurance policy on him. DAMN. Just
>> showing shit like that on the TV - it could give people ideas - people do
>> strange shit over money.
>
> There are already awful things going on, like kidnapping and killing young
> people in Third Word nations to get their organs for sick rich people
> waiting for transplants. It's cynical that medical methods - once invented
> to SAVE human lives - lead to KILLING or mutilation of healthy people.
That's real capitalism for ya.
>
>
Comm
>
> "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:VQXXf.11478$Bj7....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> unable
>> to feed themselves. What is also MALadaptive when confronted with those
>> populations - is European populations NOT breeding enough - or at least
>> using their technolgoy to heh, DO something about those others. Yeah, I
>> know what that sounds like.
>
> To address this problem is surely like entering a mine field of political
> correctness. :-)
I say let's do away with political correctness. After all, WHO foisted that
shit onto people in the first place? Don't we know (look at the title of
this thread, the subject). Who the fuck are THEY to tell anyone what to
feel? I hate political correctness because, stripped naked and looked at
clearly, it's "justification to destroy European people and their
civilization" and that is ALL it really is - and I refuse to confine
anything I think or do based on that shit. Political correctness is not OF
me, BY me or FOR me. Therefore, I reject it. If Europeans can't speak up
for themselves, then I'll freaking do it for them. I'll speak up for
Germans. Socialism is very very good for working people - so long as the
people SHARE concepts about the worth of a good day's work and share
comraderie at the workplace. And there is also nothing wrong with
nationalism. A nation and its people have the HUMAN RIGHT, the collective
NATIONAL right, to bar anyone they don't want out of their country - and/or
KICK OUT those they reject. What, only the CHINESE can do that? They do
that, you know. Do you see them squirming over the non issue of political
correctness? Do you have any idea what they DO to illegal immigrants when
they catch them? They drill holes thru their shoulders and put chains thru
them and TORTURE them to get information about HOW they got there, WHO was
the ring leader in the group that helped them get in, and so forth. Then
they kick them out - mutilated. A great incentive to NOT GO THERE. Do you
hear the world whining about this? Do you see the Chinese people squirming
to explain it all away to some political correct thought cops? Heh, China
is FOR CHINESE PEOPLE - and we all know that. And there is nothing wrong
with that. It's their RIGHT.
Europeans are not "too civilized" as most people I know say, who agree with
me on these issues. If they were very civilized, even MORE civilized,
they'd do ANYTHING IT TAKES to preserve their cilivization and its high
standards. ANYTHING it takes! They are too cowardly to ACT, imo. Too
scared that someone might call them a name. How on earth did something from
the twisted minds of a minority of people get to be SO BIG that everyone is
scared of it? I don't understand that. I really don't.
>
>> I fear this: the END of Western Civilization in the West and in the USA.
>> That's going to come - UNLESS something really drastic happens - and I
> mean
>> drastic like what happened in Germany when things got THAT bad. European
>> countries might have to go that way - push is COMING to shove, Sylvia.
>
> Still, I hope mankind has learned enough from past atrocities that we
> don't
> make the same mistakes again.
No, Sylvia. An ATROCITY is what is HAPPENING NOW in Europe and in the USA.
THAT is the atrocity. You need to take off the protective glasses that some
foreign culture put on your eyes and see this very clearly. THAT is the
atrocity. It resulted in an atrocity because things were just left alone to
go way way too far. Then sure, you get the atrocity. IF it had been nipped
in the damned bud - then there would NOT have been any atrocity. Trust me,
the Chinese see with very very clear sight. You can NOT just let weeds
multiply in a garden you took care to plant and HOPE they'll get along with
the damned flowers. You have to pluck them out and burn them and then keep
watch that MORE don't start to grow. The Chinese know this very very well.
What mistakes? WW2? The mistake was trying to stretch way too far - a BIG
mistake. There is NO atrocity in keeping your own nation in order for the
natives and indigenous people in your nation - GERMANS. CHRISTIANS of some
kind, maybe not too religious. NOT Moslems. NOT middle easterners, NOT
blacks. And sure, not MY people either if they are from Turkey and making
freaking trouble there now. (Actually, Turkish people from Turkey are VERY
differnt from us Turks who are Tatars, the real thing - they also look
different).
Sylvia, a lot of Tatars were in Germany during Hitler's time, in Bavaria
mostly - my uncle-in-law (not blood related, well, wait...hmm.. anyway) he
was in the SS, Sylvia, and in the NSDAP party! LMAO, I'm not kidding! -
obviously, tho Tatar, they were German by culture as my uncle was - I met
him. So he was obviously OK, there. My point then is this: I have to
ask - just how "racist" was this SS if they had my uncle in it? He was a
Hauptsturmfuehrer, too, not just a nobody. I think that's Captain, not
sure. I mean, he also had a family there - all of them Tatars - and he
married a German girl there, Hilde, if I remember her name right, so his
kids were half and half and that was NO problem. Tatars are not Aryan. In
that way of categorizing, we are Turanian. Why not join the NSDAP party? -
it was everything positive and definitely PRO WORKING PEOPLE. Contrary to
the propaganda lyers, NSDAP was LEFT WING. The Tatars there, at that time
(and I later on met quite a few German speaking Tatars when I was a kid,
they came here after the war) they never EVER made waves or got into trouble
there, nor did they try to insinuate themselves into places of control and
CHANGE the character of the German people. Germany for GERMANS. Germany
has a RIGHT to be German. What, the politically correct assholes ONLY give
that "nationalistic" right to American Indians or Africans in Africa? HA!
Hypocritical asshole double talkers. Or don't you think you have a right to
exist? Germany has a right to exist. What atrocity - if anything, people
that don't belong there might be inspired to keep the fuck out. Let them
keep their fucking misery and backward shit to themselves, confined to their
own nations. Theyare dogsin the manger: "If THEY can't have it, or produce
it - then NOBODY is gonna have it." Dogs in the manger. Time to call the
dog pound.
>
>> Maybe not that drastic in the BIG BIG USA. Just Pat Buchannan for the
>> USA
>> would do fine. I th ink you don't appreaciate, that states in the USA
>> are
>> like countries in Europe - they are BIG.
>
> Yes, USA is a bit like Europe - on a larger scale.
Well, right now, we have fanatical Christians here banded together so big
that their vote alone can elect a president. They are the first Americans
that WANT to be told what to do, what to think, what to believe. Sound
familiar? They got that way due to really objective problems that
overwhelmed their lives - objectively. Next to that we have some really far
out alternative religions here - sound familiar? And now we have the left
wing Joe Savage types and the right wing Rush Limbaugh types AGREEING with
each other on the types of issues that MAKE people get united - under what
the politically correct assholes would call "RACIST AS HELL." NO, it's not
fucking racism to be racist against people who ARE racists. It's self
preservation.
I hear their spews. Kill the gringos. Kill the blue eyed devils. Hating
western civilization and the people capable of making it. JEAOUS of it and
European people. THEY are my enemies. I'd kill them all if I had the power
to do it. It would take me one week. Then the PROBLEMS would be gone and
people would be able to get back to LIVING A LIFE worth having. People DO
have that right. Rights are NOT to be a one way thing, just handed out to
people that ruin society and turn everything to shit. They are the people I
would NOT GIVE ANY rights to. And no, I'd not lock them up and throw out
the key and then have working people's tax dollars spent keeping them alive.
No way.
>
>
>
Comm
"Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:e1k3fm$9k9$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
> "Aardvark J. Bandersnatch" <sumb...@micrsfot.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:YvD_f.918965$xm3.518988@attbi_s21...
>
>> Indeed, there are major cultural differences between the two areas, and
>> it
>> was those cultural differences that made the African attempts miserable
>> failures. Again, it seems to be because "we" (Americans and Europeans)
> just
>> can't seem to figure out that other people don't have the same values
>> that
>> we have.
>
> Though this might mean that I do the same mistake again, I suppose that it
> is universal human nature to conclude that "everyone is thinking more or
> less like me".
No it is not. Let me straighten something out here - the MAJORITY OF PEOPLE
here did NOT want to loan anything to African nations, after even ONE TIME
seeing the money going down the toilet bowl. Here, take my freaking
paycheck and flush it - heh. It was NOT the "American people" that wanted
ANY of this shit. But they had to endure it, nonetheless, due to a minority
of people in places of power. People don't need 10 times the same
experience to know that "they just are NOT like us - and it's a very bad
idea to do ANYTHING for them - especially lend them money."
We tend to generalize our personal experience. Quite often -
> especially within our own cultural sphere -such thinking yields useful
> results in everyday life. But it may stand in the way of intercultural
> understanding. A scientific approach might be helpful then.
No, just common sense.
>
> I admit that it's hard for me to understand why many women (especially in
> Africa and Muslim societies) don't seek to escape their constraints if
> they
> have the chance to, and even though they are offered help. But then again,
> I
> also can't understand why people don't seek to escape drug addiction when
> they are offered help. Something seems to be much stronger than rational
> arguments.
Well, most people don't bother TRYING to understand why why and why. They
realize that "this is just the way THEY are" and forget about THEM.
Consider this, 99% of the people here have way more on their minds of real
importance to them to even have any TIME to waste on THOSE other people over
there. Important shit, like where the money is coming from to pay the god
damned electric bill. The only people that spend their time fussing and
fretting over shit going on "over there" have WAY too much time on their
hands. Now, if they'd just donate THEIR OWN time and money to this shit -
there'd be no problem. But forcing "charity" from tax payers is not
charity. It's THEFT. And don't we all see our money going down the damned
flush bowl? Sure we do. Build them houses in a nice area right here, not
in Africa - and predictable, 5 years down the line it's just another slum.
Everyone here SEES this over and over - 100 times over. WOW, look over
there - WOW - it's an intact black family! WOW and most of them haven't
committed any crimes! WOW. Puh leeze!
>
>
Comm
http://www.apodion.com/vad/article.php?id=&aid=11
Sylvia Knörr
> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:e1k26k$hg4$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
> > "Aardvark J. Bandersnatch" <sumb...@micrsfot.com> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag
> > news:zuD_f.918962$xm3.465738@attbi_s21...
> >> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> >> news:e1c9s4$gmc$03$1...@news.t-online.com...
> >> > Hm, depends on whether we believe in the existence of a "free will".
> >> > Somehow
> >> > I doubt it and believe that we are slaves to our genes. Fortunately,
we
> >> > have a perfect illusion of a 'free will'. :-)
> >> Then again, some of us are slaves to our jeans... usually Levi-Strauss.
> > Hehehe, I guess this was a typical anthropology joke. :-)
> Q: How do you tell a boy chromosome from a girl chromosome?
>
> A: You pull down its jeans.
>
> jeans-genes, some pronunciation, different meaning -- it's a pun.
Hehe.
Too bad that these kinds of jokes are untranslatable.
Sylvia Knörr
Yes, very likely so. The social setting probably limits our behavioral
options a lot.
> The question then becomes of understanding their concepts of themselves,
> their worlds, and their possibilities. That, of course, requires careful
and
> sensitive research by psychologists, sociologists, and anthropologists.
> That's a lot of work to go through before setting up a program. Sometimes
it
> seems as though trail-and-error is a more effective method (overall).
I guess some things can't be effectively predicted by scientific means.
Human behavior might be one of these things, because it is very complex. By
applying the trial-and-error method, we can circumvent complexity because we
can use INTUITION - inaccessible to the rationality of science. In some
areas it may be the superior method.
Sylvia Knörr
> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:e1k3fm$9k9$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
> > "Aardvark J. Bandersnatch" <sumb...@micrsfot.com> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag
> > news:YvD_f.918965$xm3.518988@attbi_s21...
> >> Indeed, there are major cultural differences between the two areas, and
> >> it was those cultural differences that made the African attempts
miserable
> >> failures. Again, it seems to be because "we" (Americans and Europeans)
> >> just can't seem to figure out that other people don't have the same
> >> values that we have.
> > Though this might mean that I do the same mistake again, I suppose that
> > it is universal human nature to conclude that "everyone is thinking more
or
> > less like me".
> No it is not. Let me straighten something out here - the MAJORITY OF
PEOPLE
> here did NOT want to loan anything to African nations, after even ONE TIME
> seeing the money going down the toilet bowl. Here, take my freaking
> paycheck and flush it - heh. It was NOT the "American people" that wanted
> ANY of this shit. But they had to endure it, nonetheless, due to a
minority
> of people in places of power. People don't need 10 times the same
> experience to know that "they just are NOT like us - and it's a very bad
> idea to do ANYTHING for them - especially lend them money."
I do not generally consider help projects as mere acts of charity. By
helping Third World people to find ways to make a decent living in their
native lands, they have lesser motivation to go to First World countries to
seek greener pastures. If it works, the investment was not money flushed
down the toilet bowl. *IF* it works, is something we have to find out in the
first place.
> > We tend to generalize our personal experience. Quite often -
> > especially within our own cultural sphere -such thinking yields useful
> > results in everyday life. But it may stand in the way of intercultural
> > understanding. A scientific approach might be helpful then.
> No, just common sense.
Common sense is NEVER a bad idea. :-))
I also like Aardvark's remark that sometimes the trial-and-error method
yields equal or better results than scientific research. Common sense and
gut feeling are still not obsolete. :-)
> > I admit that it's hard for me to understand why many women (especially
> > in Africa and Muslim societies) don't seek to escape their constraints
if
> > they have the chance to, and even though they are offered help. But then
> > again, I also can't understand why people don't seek to escape drug
> > addiction when
> > they are offered help. Something seems to be much stronger than rational
> > arguments.
> Well, most people don't bother TRYING to understand why why and why. They
> realize that "this is just the way THEY are" and forget about THEM.
> Consider this, 99% of the people here have way more on their minds of real
> importance to them to even have any TIME to waste on THOSE other people
> over there. Important shit, like where the money is coming from to pay
the god
> damned electric bill. The only people that spend their time fussing and
> fretting over shit going on "over there" have WAY too much time on their
> hands. Now, if they'd just donate THEIR OWN time and money to this shit -
> there'd be no problem. But forcing "charity" from tax payers is not
> charity. It's THEFT.
Well, it's in the nature of modern states that the individual can't decide
what the government does with our tax money, we can only vote for those
politicians who we *think* will spend it wisely.
> And don't we all see our money going down the damned
> flush bowl? Sure we do. Build them houses in a nice area right here, not
> in Africa - and predictable, 5 years down the line it's just another slum.
> Everyone here SEES this over and over - 100 times over. WOW, look over
> there - WOW - it's an intact black family! WOW and most of them haven't
> committed any crimes! WOW. Puh leeze!
Since I do not share your experiments with black people, I am more
optimistic and believe that help projects CAN be successful, be it somewhere
in far away places or right in the neighborhood. Maybe you focus more on the
failures, because they are ALWAYS more obvious than the successes, because
they are annoying.
Sylvia Knörr
Doctoral degrees obviously still can't eliminate our animal heritage. It
takes a lot of culture to get it under control. :-)
> BTW, I didn't get the job... again.
Either your maleness or your chimpness was not sufficient. I hope you can
find a job in a more HUMAN setting. ;-)
Sylvia Knörr
Interesting article, though I tend to think gender behavior *has* to do a
lot with testosterone and other hormones - corresponding with environment
and particular lifestyle (hunter-gatherer, forager, farmer etc).
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch
>
> "Aardvark J. Bandersnatch" <sumb...@micrsfot.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:T2r%f.923753$xm3.65213@attbi_s21...
>> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
>> news:e1k1u3$6n4$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
>> Actually, Sylvia, I have no conclusion from that experience. It was just
>> rather amusing to sit there and observe (almost like second-hand) this
>> clearly simian behavior from several individuals with doctoral degrees
> from
>> highly regarded universities.
>
>
> Doctoral degrees obviously still can't eliminate our animal heritage. It
> takes a lot of culture to get it under control. :-)
>
>> BTW, I didn't get the job... again.
>
>
> Either your maleness or your chimpness was not sufficient. I hope you can
> find a job in a more HUMAN setting. ;-)
Forty years spent in pursuit of an academic career, and I've got to deal
with alpha chimp wannabes.
le sigh.
Sylvia Knörr
> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:e1c8l8$6su$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
> > "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:hRlZf.1097$BS2...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> Sylvia - it's part of the Nation of Islam RELIGION to believe this.
They
> >> believe whites are blue-eyed devils - cave people.
> > Yep, I think many of them are taught and BELIEVE that non-Muslims are
> > primitive and EVIL. I've seen several of them on usenet and found it
> > difficult to get into any reasonable dialogue with them - just like
> > creationists and other fanatics. Some creeds seem to kill
open-mindedness.
> The Nation of Islam is BLACK Moslems. Not Middle Eastern ones at all.
They
> are blacks, in the USA. They are anti white.
Ah, you are referring to an US phenomenon! I see. Probably a quite different
thing than the Middle East Muslims.
I agree that laws make it quite discouraging to raise kids, because they
impose a lot of long-term duties to parents. But I can't believe that black
parents get away with things that white parents are punished for. If it is
so, then it must be due to biased courts or lack of control.
For me it is okay that children are protected from neglect, mistreatment and
abuse; yet sometimes it's just not reasonable that parents are expected to
be "education experts" 24/7. Especially well educated couples might say, "we
can't afford to have children because we are not rich enough and we are not
qualified".
> >> I think that the European people are enough outbred to be healthy - and
> >> they ARE the people that created Western Civilization. No other people
> >> created it - and there is no reason to assume they CAN create it - or
even
> >> preserve it. The Chinese could. But there are others that, imo, can
only
> >> destroy it. I have eyes. I've seen.
> > As for being healthy - wait a minute! Western civilization has found
ways to
> > work around natural selection. With high class medical care,
pharmaceutic
> > products and vaccines, we have lots of people who are not sooo very
> > healthy - they just live with the help of all the medical stuff and care
> > which is available. Natural selection is more mercyless in Third World
> > nations, because people who are poor simply can't afford medical aid,
and
> > die. Hence, the survivors are REALLY robust and healthy.
> And the reason they are so overpopulated is due to western medicine and
> health care helping them out.
True, a lot of Third world residents would have died without western help.
Before colonisation had set in, natural selection must have been much more
merciless. In Africa, it was wise for the couples to have lots of children,
because lots of them regularly died brom droughts, famines and diseases.
With Western medicine, this got out of balance.
Sylvia Knörr
> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:e16ugk$u0t$03$1...@news.t-online.com...
> > "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:VQXXf.11478$Bj7....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >> What is MALadaptive for the planet is population breeding too much -
unable
> >> to feed themselves. What is also MALadaptive when confronted with
those
> >> populations - is European populations NOT breeding enough - or at least
> >> using their technolgoy to heh, DO something about those others. Yeah,
> >> I know what that sounds like.
> > To address this problem is surely like entering a mine field of
> > political correctness. :-)
> I say let's do away with political correctness. After all, WHO foisted
that
> shit onto people in the first place? Don't we know (look at the title of
> this thread, the subject). Who the fuck are THEY to tell anyone what to
> feel? I hate political correctness because, stripped naked and looked at
> clearly, it's "justification to destroy European people and their
> civilization" and that is ALL it really is - and I refuse to confine
> anything I think or do based on that shit.
I think PC once started as a set of good intentions: moral standards against
racism, sexism and all kinds of intolerance. Yet I fear the pendulum went to
the other extreme - PC has become a kind of "thought control". That's just
ANOTHER form of intolerance.
"Destruction of European people and culture" was probably not intended in
the first place, but it could be a side effect of too much PC if we don't do
some course corrections.
> Political correctness is not OF
> me, BY me or FOR me. Therefore, I reject it. If Europeans can't speak up
> for themselves, then I'll freaking do it for them. I'll speak up for
> Germans. Socialism is very very good for working people - so long as the
> people SHARE concepts about the worth of a good day's work and share
> comraderie at the workplace. And there is also nothing wrong with
> nationalism. A nation and its people have the HUMAN RIGHT, the collective
> NATIONAL right, to bar anyone they don't want out of their country -
and/or
> KICK OUT those they reject. What, only the CHINESE can do that? They do
> that, you know. Do you see them squirming over the non issue of political
> correctness? Do you have any idea what they DO to illegal immigrants when
> they catch them? They drill holes thru their shoulders and put chains
thru
> them and TORTURE them to get information about HOW they got there, WHO was
> the ring leader in the group that helped them get in, and so forth. Then
> they kick them out - mutilated. A great incentive to NOT GO THERE. Do
you
> hear the world whining about this? Do you see the Chinese people
squirming
> to explain it all away to some political correct thought cops? Heh, China
> is FOR CHINESE PEOPLE - and we all know that. And there is nothing wrong
> with that. It's their RIGHT.
Well, nationalism can come as aggressive or as defensive variety. I reject
aggressive nationalism like Hitler's Third Reich, because it shoves national
values down other peoples' throats.
However, I think it should be the right of every nation to determine which
kind of immigrants they accept and which they reject. The Chinese way to
torture illegal immigrants is NOT to my liking, but then - nobody is FORCED
to go there.
> Europeans are not "too civilized" as most people I know say, who agree
> with me on these issues. If they were very civilized, even MORE
civilized,
> they'd do ANYTHING IT TAKES to preserve their cilivization and its high
> standards. ANYTHING it takes! They are too cowardly to ACT, imo. Too
> scared that someone might call them a name. How on earth did something
> from the twisted minds of a minority of people get to be SO BIG that
everyone
> is scared of it? I don't understand that. I really don't.
Are Europeans too cowardly to act? I don't think so. History shows that
Europeans had their share of warfare and bloodshed. I rather think that
Europeans tried to mature, and solve problems with peaceful means instead of
waging war or killing those who don't abide our laws.
Just like we teach our children to get along with each others and not smash
each others brains over a desired toy. We have to live up to these standards
if we want our children (or foreigners, or immigrants) to accept them.
That's right, but the Chinese are not Europeans. We can't walk THEIR way,
because we have a quite different background. The Chinese have been under
strict laws which have restricted individual rights for thousands of years,
they can cope with it. Europeans violently REVOLT when laws get too tight
and leave not enough room to move for the individuals. European history is
packed with countless revolutions.
For that we have to find our own way of dealing with the present "value
clash", which is mainly an "Islam versus Non-Islam" clash.
> What mistakes? WW2? The mistake was trying to stretch way too far - a
> BIG mistake. There is NO atrocity in keeping your own nation in order for
the
> natives and indigenous people in your nation - GERMANS. CHRISTIANS of
> some kind, maybe not too religious. NOT Moslems. NOT middle easterners,
> NOT blacks. And sure, not MY people either if they are from Turkey and
making
> freaking trouble there now. (Actually, Turkish people from Turkey are
VERY
> differnt from us Turks who are Tatars, the real thing - they also look
> different).
Yes I know. I guess Germans are reluctant to vigorously reject the (mostly
Turkish) demands, because we are careful not to slide into such a thing as
the Holocaust once again. We are aware that deep under our civilized surface
there's still a barbaric core, and we have to keep it in check. We have seen
what happens when xenophobia gets out of control.
> Sylvia, a lot of Tatars were in Germany during Hitler's time, in Bavaria
> mostly - my uncle-in-law (not blood related, well, wait...hmm.. anyway) he
> was in the SS, Sylvia, and in the NSDAP party! LMAO, I'm not kidding! -
> obviously, tho Tatar, they were German by culture as my uncle was - I met
> him. So he was obviously OK, there. My point then is this: I have to
> ask - just how "racist" was this SS if they had my uncle in it? He was a
> Hauptsturmfuehrer, too, not just a nobody. I think that's Captain, not
> sure. I mean, he also had a family there - all of them Tatars - and he
> married a German girl there, Hilde, if I remember her name right, so his
> kids were half and half and that was NO problem. Tatars are not Aryan.
Amazing, your inlaw people must have been well adapted. But then, I suppose
it was not so hard back then to get naturalized as long as someone wasn't a
Jew.
> In that way of categorizing, we are Turanian. Why not join the NSDAP
party? -
> it was everything positive and definitely PRO WORKING PEOPLE. Contrary to
> the propaganda lyers, NSDAP was LEFT WING.
They defined themselves as RIGHT wing, but you can't compare that to the US
concept of right and left wing. Anyway, if you compare extreme right wing
and extreme left wing regimes, you find out that they have many things in
common. Particularly intolerance towards regime opponents!
But yes, the NSDAP started as a workers' party. The name
"Nationalsozialistische Arbeiterpartei Deutschlands" literally means "
national socialist *WORKERS* Party of Germany".
> The Tatars there, at that time
> (and I later on met quite a few German speaking Tatars when I was a kid,
> they came here after the war) they never EVER made waves or got into
> trouble there, nor did they try to insinuate themselves into places of
control and
> CHANGE the character of the German people. Germany for GERMANS.
> Germany has a RIGHT to be German.
If you were not Jewish, and you didn't rock the boat back then, integration
was not an issue. Since Germany has ALWAYS been attracting immigrants from
neighboring countries throughout history, it was no big thing. It was just
that the Nazis had that obsession with Jews.
> What, the politically correct assholes ONLY give
> that "nationalistic" right to American Indians or Africans in Africa? HA!
> Hypocritical asshole double talkers. Or don't you think you have a right
> to exist? Germany has a right to exist. What atrocity - if anything,
people
> that don't belong there might be inspired to keep the fuck out. Let them
> keep their fucking misery and backward shit to themselves, confined to
their
> own nations. Theyare dogsin the manger: "If THEY can't have it, or
produce
> it - then NOBODY is gonna have it." Dogs in the manger. Time to call the
> dog pound.
To be fair, not ALL kinds of immigrants are troublemakers, not even Turks or
Muslims in general are. Most of them are willing to adapt and to live with
us in peace. But there's a small percentage which is causing a lot of
friction because they are unable or unwilling to adapt, and quite
aggressive. These are the ones we have to deal with. For these guys I would
like to apply a "zero tolerance" strategy.
> >> Maybe not that drastic in the BIG BIG USA. Just Pat Buchannan for the
> >> USA would do fine. I th ink you don't appreaciate, that states in the
USA
> >> are like countries in Europe - they are BIG.
> > Yes, USA is a bit like Europe - on a larger scale.
> Well, right now, we have fanatical Christians here banded together so big
> that their vote alone can elect a president. They are the first Americans
> that WANT to be told what to do, what to think, what to believe. Sound
> familiar? They got that way due to really objective problems that
> overwhelmed their lives - objectively. Next to that we have some really
far
> out alternative religions here - sound familiar?
It's a bit scaring when people want someone to tell them what to think and
what to do. This "waiting for a strong leader" rings too familiar to my
German ear. I guess that's what you get if human values are under attack for
a while AND economic conditions are deteriorating.
And now we have the left
> wing Joe Savage types and the right wing Rush Limbaugh types AGREEING with
> each other on the types of issues that MAKE people get united - under what
> the politically correct assholes would call "RACIST AS HELL." NO, it's
> not fucking racism to be racist against people who ARE racists. It's self
> preservation.
Agreed. It's not tolerance if it leads to another form of intolerance.
> I hear their spews. Kill the gringos. Kill the blue eyed devils. Hating
> western civilization and the people capable of making it. JEAOUS of it
> and European people. THEY are my enemies. I'd kill them all if I had the
power
> to do it. It would take me one week. Then the PROBLEMS would be gone
and
> people would be able to get back to LIVING A LIFE worth having. People DO
> have that right. Rights are NOT to be a one way thing, just handed out to
> people that ruin society and turn everything to shit. They are the people
I
> would NOT GIVE ANY rights to. And no, I'd not lock them up and throw out
> the key and then have working people's tax dollars spent keeping them
alive.
> No way.
There is one thing that I never understood: if the USA has so much trouble
with illegal immigrants all the time, why not solve the problem by
establishing a system which allows to IDENTIFY any person beyond reasonable
doubt?
In Germany, there is a law that EVERY citizen has to have an identity card
with the latest address, and we are obliged to inform the department
authority immediately when we commute. This is not only the data basis for
every voting list, but it also allows to identify illegals easily, as soon
as they get involved in a police control or any other act of communal
interest (like applying for a drivers licence or for a job). This way
illegals almost never manage to get their kids to school here, or get
medical treatment without revealing their illegal status.
Such an identity system could work for the USA, too, and illegals wouldn't
have much of a chance to live there undiscoverd for years.
Comm
>
> "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:hpc0g.2716$An2...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> impose a lot of long-term duties to parents. But I can't believe that
> black
> parents get away with things that white parents are punished for.
HAAAA, boy, you need to come here and see for yourself, then. Black KIDS
blew up the cop sub station in Ft. Myers awhile back. Where were THEIR
parents? LMAO. That's just SO typical. And the Hispanics and illegals
bring their kids to work with them at ALL hours - and those kids work.
That's illegal - but they do it in droves. What I told you is the truth. I
don't exagerrate, Sylvia. People find that out all too late, about me.
If it is
> so, then it must be due to biased courts or lack of control.
HA HA, ya think?
> For me it is okay that children are protected from neglect, mistreatment
> and
> abuse; yet sometimes it's just not reasonable that parents are expected to
> be "education experts" 24/7. Especially well educated couples might say,
> "we
> can't afford to have children because we are not rich enough and we are
> not
> qualified".
Well, I see in some communities that every single family there, usually one
parent households or the grandmother is there - have shit going on that
would have their kids taken from them - but oh no, it's the norm for THEM.
>
>
>> And the reason they are so overpopulated is due to western medicine and
>> health care helping them out.
>
> True, a lot of Third world residents would have died without western help.
The west should NEVER have helped anyone except their own. Wiser people
knew that and warned the idiots.
Comm
>
> "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:W5d0g.3580$BS2...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>> Heh - here is my conclusion:
>>
>> http://www.apodion.com/vad/article.php?id=&aid=11
>
>
> Interesting article, though I tend to think gender behavior *has* to do a
> lot with testosterone and other hormones - corresponding with environment
> and particular lifestyle (hunter-gatherer, forager, farmer etc).
Read it again then. It's about gender behavior - but gender behavior is NOT
all that consistent between groups of people. The FBI crime stats would
really inform you of that :)
>
>
Comm
>
> "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:V5d0g.3578$BS2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> > political correctness. :-)
>
>> I say let's do away with political correctness. After all, WHO foisted
> that
>> shit onto people in the first place? Don't we know (look at the title of
>> this thread, the subject). Who the fuck are THEY to tell anyone what to
>> feel? I hate political correctness because, stripped naked and looked at
>> clearly, it's "justification to destroy European people and their
>> civilization" and that is ALL it really is - and I refuse to confine
>> anything I think or do based on that shit.
>
> I think PC once started as a set of good intentions: moral standards
> against
> racism, sexism and all kinds of intolerance. Yet I fear the pendulum went
> to
> the other extreme - PC has become a kind of "thought control". That's just
> ANOTHER form of intolerance.
Frankfurt School. There you have it. The thought police. You can't make
people be tolerant - you can't make people LIKE other people. In a truly
FREE society, if people wanted to integrate they could do it - and if they
wanted to segregate they could also do that. And in all spheres of life,
workplace, schools, clubs, communities, etc. That would be REAL - FREEDOM
OF CHOICE. What do they fear so much, that they'd legislate against FREE
CHOICE? That's tyranny, no matter HOW you spell it.
> "Destruction of European people and culture" was probably not intended in
> the first place, but it could be a side effect of too much PC if we don't
> do
> some course corrections.
I believe it WAS the intention of it the whole while.
Agree. But there is everything RIGHT about defensive nationalism.
> However, I think it should be the right of every nation to determine which
> kind of immigrants they accept and which they reject.
Agree, as I said. It's their right - and they used to HAVE that right.
The Chinese way to
> torture illegal immigrants is NOT to my liking, but then - nobody is
> FORCED
> to go there.
Right - and I agree with the Chinese method of handling it. They ASKED for
it when they snuck into China and broke Chinese laws.
>
>> Europeans are not "too civilized" as most people I know say, who agree
>> with me on these issues. If they were very civilized, even MORE
> civilized,
>> they'd do ANYTHING IT TAKES to preserve their cilivization and its high
>> standards. ANYTHING it takes! They are too cowardly to ACT, imo. Too
>> scared that someone might call them a name. How on earth did something
>> from the twisted minds of a minority of people get to be SO BIG that
> everyone
>> is scared of it? I don't understand that. I really don't.
>
> Are Europeans too cowardly to act? I don't think so. History shows that
> Europeans had their share of warfare and bloodshed. I rather think that
> Europeans tried to mature, and solve problems with peaceful means instead
> of
> waging war or killing those who don't abide our laws.
Wrong. Europeans are setting themselve up for MORE war and bloodshed and
conflict and strife and riots. They are having problems right now - but
they could EASILY solve those problems. They are too cowardly to act.
> Just like we teach our children to get along with each others and not
> smash
> each others brains over a desired toy. We have to live up to these
> standards
> if we want our children (or foreigners, or immigrants) to accept them.
Some foreigners and immigrants WILL NOT accept that as law - no way. That
is the problem.
Europeans USED to walk that way - and things were much better within the
countries. Europeans either learn to walk that way again, or their culture
and their people are going to be a FOOTNOTE in a history book.
The Chinese have been under
> strict laws which have restricted individual rights for thousands of
> years,
> they can cope with it. Europeans violently REVOLT when laws get too tight
> and leave not enough room to move for the individuals.
MOST Europeans are in favor of STOPPING all that immigration - and even
sending them back home. Most Americans are too. Since MOST want that - why
aren't we GETTING IT?
European history is
> packed with countless revolutions.
> For that we have to find our own way of dealing with the present "value
> clash", which is mainly an "Islam versus Non-Islam" clash.
Not so. Islamists make their plans very clear - they will overcome you by
UNARMED invasion and breeding - they even SAY that up front. That Italian
author exposed it.
>
>> What mistakes? WW2? The mistake was trying to stretch way too far - a
>> BIG mistake. There is NO atrocity in keeping your own nation in order
>> for
> the
>> natives and indigenous people in your nation - GERMANS. CHRISTIANS of
>> some kind, maybe not too religious. NOT Moslems. NOT middle easterners,
>> NOT blacks. And sure, not MY people either if they are from Turkey and
> making
>> freaking trouble there now. (Actually, Turkish people from Turkey are
> VERY
>> differnt from us Turks who are Tatars, the real thing - they also look
>> different).
>
> Yes I know. I guess Germans are reluctant to vigorously reject the (mostly
> Turkish) demands, because we are careful not to slide into such a thing as
> the Holocaust once again.
Yeah, fear fear fear - AFRAID someone will call you a name. Fuck the fear.
GET OVER it.
We are aware that deep under our civilized surface
> there's still a barbaric core, and we have to keep it in check. We have
> seen
> what happens when xenophobia gets out of control.
Bah - it's going to break out sooner or later when push comes to shove - and
MILLIONS will die due to it. Trust me - I KNOW that's coming. Everyone is
barbaric beneath the civilized core. And WE TURKS know that best of all, ha
ha! Tatars ARE Turks - yes. Germans are terrified of being called a name.
That's all there is to it. I've talked to MANY German vacationers here -
and they are living under a YOKE that chains their hearts and voices. Rid
yourselves of that yoke. ok, the holocaust happened. Sure thing. But do
you think that's ALL there is to it? Do you think that the people, regular
people not party members or Nazi militants, that rose up against Jews did
that for NO REASON? Oh, there were reasons. There are ALWAYS reasons,
Sylvia.
>
>> Sylvia, a lot of Tatars were in Germany during Hitler's time, in Bavaria
>> mostly - my uncle-in-law (not blood related, well, wait...hmm.. anyway)
>> he
>> was in the SS, Sylvia, and in the NSDAP party! LMAO, I'm not kidding! -
>> obviously, tho Tatar, they were German by culture as my uncle was - I met
>> him. So he was obviously OK, there. My point then is this: I have to
>> ask - just how "racist" was this SS if they had my uncle in it? He was a
>> Hauptsturmfuehrer, too, not just a nobody. I think that's Captain, not
>> sure. I mean, he also had a family there - all of them Tatars - and he
>> married a German girl there, Hilde, if I remember her name right, so his
>> kids were half and half and that was NO problem. Tatars are not Aryan.
>
> Amazing, your inlaw people must have been well adapted. But then, I
> suppose
> it was not so hard back then to get naturalized as long as someone wasn't
> a
> Jew.
Indeed. Jews were OK with the Reich if they didn't ACT Jewish - but were
thoroughly enculturated. I think Hitler's cook was Jewish, too. Heydrich
was a Jew - his grandmother was (which made him a Jew under Nazi laws). He
was number 2 SS leader, btw.
>
>> In that way of categorizing, we are Turanian. Why not join the NSDAP
> party? -
>> it was everything positive and definitely PRO WORKING PEOPLE. Contrary
>> to
>> the propaganda lyers, NSDAP was LEFT WING.
>
> They defined themselves as RIGHT wing, but you can't compare that to the
> US
> concept of right and left wing. Anyway, if you compare extreme right wing
> and extreme left wing regimes, you find out that they have many things in
> common. Particularly intolerance towards regime opponents!
> But yes, the NSDAP started as a workers' party. The name
> "Nationalsozialistische Arbeiterpartei Deutschlands" literally means "
> national socialist *WORKERS* Party of Germany".
I know. They were a socialist party - and in the USA reckoning, anything
socialist is left wing. It's pro working people.
>
>> The Tatars there, at that time
>> (and I later on met quite a few German speaking Tatars when I was a kid,
>> they came here after the war) they never EVER made waves or got into
>> trouble there, nor did they try to insinuate themselves into places of
> control and
>> CHANGE the character of the German people. Germany for GERMANS.
>> Germany has a RIGHT to be German.
>
> If you were not Jewish, and you didn't rock the boat back then,
> integration
> was not an issue. Since Germany has ALWAYS been attracting immigrants from
> neighboring countries throughout history, it was no big thing. It was just
> that the Nazis had that obsession with Jews.
Well, why don't you find out WHY they thought that way? I found out - heh,
I simply ASKED - and it was easy enough to read what these Nazi writers back
there actually wrote about it. GO READ IT. Find out WHY they felt that
way.
>
>> What, the politically correct assholes ONLY give
>> that "nationalistic" right to American Indians or Africans in Africa?
>> HA!
>> Hypocritical asshole double talkers. Or don't you think you have a right
>> to exist? Germany has a right to exist. What atrocity - if anything,
> people
>> that don't belong there might be inspired to keep the fuck out. Let them
>> keep their fucking misery and backward shit to themselves, confined to
> their
>> own nations. Theyare dogsin the manger: "If THEY can't have it, or
> produce
>> it - then NOBODY is gonna have it." Dogs in the manger. Time to call
>> the
>> dog pound.
>
> To be fair, not ALL kinds of immigrants are troublemakers, not even Turks
> or
> Muslims in general are. Most of them are willing to adapt and to live with
> us in peace.
Then fine, they stay there.
But there's a small percentage which is causing a lot of
> friction because they are unable or unwilling to adapt, and quite
> aggressive. These are the ones we have to deal with. For these guys I
> would
> like to apply a "zero tolerance" strategy.
Germany should do that. European nations should do it.
>
>> >> Maybe not that drastic in the BIG BIG USA. Just Pat Buchannan for the
>> >> USA would do fine. I th ink you don't appreaciate, that states in the
> USA
>> >> are like countries in Europe - they are BIG.
>
>> > Yes, USA is a bit like Europe - on a larger scale.
>
>> Well, right now, we have fanatical Christians here banded together so big
>> that their vote alone can elect a president. They are the first
>> Americans
>> that WANT to be told what to do, what to think, what to believe. Sound
>> familiar? They got that way due to really objective problems that
>> overwhelmed their lives - objectively. Next to that we have some really
> far
>> out alternative religions here - sound familiar?
>
> It's a bit scaring when people want someone to tell them what to think and
> what to do. This "waiting for a strong leader" rings too familiar to my
> German ear.
Indeed! It's exactly the same situation. They NEED someone to tell them
these things because their lives simply and objectively got WAY out of
control and turned upside down. United they stand - and life DOES get much
better for them in the Fundie Christian fold. They are united.
I guess that's what you get if human values are under attack for
> a while AND economic conditions are deteriorating.
Yes - you get a Hitler. Which is my point. Are these Frankfurt and other
assholes THAT stupid that th ey don't know that this PC shit is PROVOKING it
all over again? Perhaps they are just innately self-destructive.
It has to be ENFORCED. The problem is that Big Corporations want the cheap
labor. THAT is the problem!
> In Germany, there is a law that EVERY citizen has to have an identity card
> with the latest address, and we are obliged to inform the department
> authority immediately when we commute. This is not only the data basis for
> every voting list, but it also allows to identify illegals easily, as soon
> as they get involved in a police control or any other act of communal
> interest (like applying for a drivers licence or for a job). This way
> illegals almost never manage to get their kids to school here, or get
> medical treatment without revealing their illegal status.
OH, illegals go to school here and get medical treatment even when they KNOW
they are illegals. They leech off our backs off the public dole. Vampires.
> Such an identity system could work for the USA, too, and illegals wouldn't
> have much of a chance to live there undiscoverd for years.
Corporations want them for cheap labor. The gov was thinking of a national
identity card - I don't know what happened to that idea. Illegals here get
FAKE ID very easily.
>
>
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch
Please excuse me for butting into the conversation, but I would like to add
a few caveats.
"Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:e2eabg$a5m$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
> "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:V5d0g.3578$BS2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
>> news:e16ugk$u0t$03$1...@news.t-online.com...
>> > "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>> > news:VQXXf.11478$Bj7....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>> >> What is MALadaptive for the planet is population breeding too much -
> unable
>> >> to feed themselves. What is also MALadaptive when confronted with
> those
>> >> populations - is European populations NOT breeding enough - or at
>> >> least
>> >> using their technolgoy to heh, DO something about those others. Yeah,
>> >> I know what that sounds like.
>
>> > To address this problem is surely like entering a mine field of
>> > political correctness. :-)
It is maladaptive but only in a particular way. The adaptation is the urge
to breed, especially urgent when the population (or individual) is under
stress. In the extra-hominid condition, this refers mostly to the physical
environment, as in not enough food or rain, or whatever. This is an attempt
to ensure continuation through multiple birth -- as ants, roaches, turtles,
sharks, and opossums are highly fecund in order to circumvent high levels
of predation. For the most part, homids propagate through devoted attention
to fewer off-spring. Under stress, however, hominids *tend* toward higher
levels of procreation. Since we are no longer quite so tied to the physical
environment and its imperatives, we are now subject to "cultural" and
"intellectual" stressors. When individual members feel their likelihood of
successful propragation and continuation is stressed beyond a certain
degree, they will switch to fecundity as an ensurer. It is counter-intuitive
and non-rational, but that's what the historic evidence tends to
demonstrate.
>> Well, right now, we have fanatical Christians here banded together so big
>> that their vote alone can elect a president. They are the first
>> Americans
>> that WANT to be told what to do, what to think, what to believe.
My perception is that this small, extreme sect of American CHINOs (Christian
In Name Only) do not want to be told what to do, think, and/or believe. They
want to tell you, me, and everybody to be just like they are. In that sense,
they are very much like all extremists, whether they be the PC bunch or the
Islamists or the Marxist-Maoist-Leninists.
Again, however, it is a "mal-adaptation" of procreation under perceived
stressors.
Micheal.
Sylvia Knörr
> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:e23jb5$56p$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
> > "Aardvark J. Bandersnatch" <sumb...@micrsfot.com> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag
> > news:T2r%f.923753$xm3.65213@attbi_s21...
> >> Actually, Sylvia, I have no conclusion from that experience. It was
just
> >> rather amusing to sit there and observe (almost like second-hand) this
> >> clearly simian behavior from several individuals with doctoral degrees
> > > from highly regarded universities.
> > Doctoral degrees obviously still can't eliminate our animal heritage. It
> > takes a lot of culture to get it under control. :-)
> >> BTW, I didn't get the job... again.
> > Either your maleness or your chimpness was not sufficient. I hope you
can
> > find a job in a more HUMAN setting. ;-)
> Forty years spent in pursuit of an academic career, and I've got to deal
> with alpha chimp wannabes.
>
> le sigh.
You applied for the job of a zoo director? ;-)
Sylvia Knörr
Your article wouldn't contradict the testosterone theory, as far as I
understand it. Indeed, there are belligerent males in every society, but not
in every society it is a favoured trait.
I tend not to see aggressiveness as a male 'disease', because there may be
areas or situations where these traits are USEFUL. But I also tend to see a
society where people definitely breed IN FAVOR OF male aggressiveness, as
sick - though they may be successful breeders. I guess it's a matter of
taste, and I simply prefer cooperation over competition. Cooperation is more
a female domain.
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch
>
>
>
> You applied for the job of a zoo director? ;-)
Almost as good -- Dean of Liberal Arts.
Sylvia Knörr
> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:e2988p$3ra$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
> > "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:hpc0g.2716$An2...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > I agree that laws make it quite discouraging to raise kids, because they
> > impose a lot of long-term duties to parents. But I can't believe that
> > black parents get away with things that white parents are punished for.
> HAAAA, boy, you need to come here and see for yourself, then. Black KIDS
> blew up the cop sub station in Ft. Myers awhile back. Where were THEIR
> parents? LMAO. That's just SO typical. And the Hispanics and illegals
> bring their kids to work with them at ALL hours - and those kids work.
> That's illegal - but they do it in droves. What I told you is the truth.
I
> don't exagerrate, Sylvia. People find that out all too late, about me.
I just don't get it. The USA has laws, police, and people who don't hesitate
to sue their pizza restaurant over a spilled cappucino. So why on earth is
there no law enforcement when it comes to illegal immigrants, or destructive
behavior of certain groups?
> > For me it is okay that children are protected from neglect, mistreatment
and
> > abuse; yet sometimes it's just not reasonable that parents are expected
to
> > be "education experts" 24/7. Especially well educated couples might say,
> > "we can't afford to have children because we are not rich enough and we
are
> > not qualified".
> Well, I see in some communities that every single family there, usually
one
> parent households or the grandmother is there - have shit going on that
> would have their kids taken from them - but oh no, it's the norm for THEM.
Sounds like some communities are given up and declared lawless areas?
> >> And the reason they are so overpopulated is due to western medicine and
> >> health care helping them out.
> > True, a lot of Third world residents would have died without western
help.
> The west should NEVER have helped anyone except their own. Wiser people
> knew that and warned the idiots.
But the West also exploited the minerals and natural resources of Third
World countries. It seems fair not only to TAKE, but also to GIVE something
back to the local population.
Sylvia Knörr
> Please excuse me for butting into the conversation, but I would like to
add
> a few caveats.
Your butting in is ALWAYS welcome!! :-)
Indeed, and we can watch birth rates decline when people live in an
environment/ situation where the likelihood of long-term SURVIVAL of
offspring is very high - like it is among wealthy citizens of stable
societies.
It seems that the European population might go extinct because of a LACK of
stress. Isn't it ironic? :-)
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch
>
> "Aardvark J. Bandersnatch" <sumb...@micrsfot.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:wNN2g.698854$084.635052@attbi_s22...
>
>> Please excuse me for butting into the conversation, but I would like to
> add
>> a few caveats.
>
> Your butting in is ALWAYS welcome!! :-)
>
>> levels of procreation. Since we are no longer quite so tied to the
> physical
>> environment and its imperatives, we are now subject to "cultural" and
>> "intellectual" stressors. When individual members feel their likelihood
>> of
>> successful propragation and continuation is stressed beyond a certain
>> degree, they will switch to fecundity as an ensurer. It is
> counter-intuitive
>> and non-rational, but that's what the historic evidence tends to
>> demonstrate.
>
> Indeed, and we can watch birth rates decline when people live in an
> environment/ situation where the likelihood of long-term SURVIVAL of
> offspring is very high - like it is among wealthy citizens of stable
> societies.
> It seems that the European population might go extinct because of a LACK
> of
> stress. Isn't it ironic? :-)
That means the thing to look for and observe over the next few years is the
increasing stress on European society by the influx of gastarbeiter,
especially those from non-European countries (like Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran,
the UAE, and such). Are there other possible stressors that might lead to
European revival?
William Morse
>
> "Aardvark J. Bandersnatch" <sumb...@micrsfot.com> schrieb im
> Newsbeitrag news:wNN2g.698854$084.635052@attbi_s22...
An interesting observation. But taking a longer term view, the "European" population has
had a significant increase in population, partly in the new world, and largely at the
expense of native populations in both North and South America and Australia. And many
ofthe recent immigrants to Europe are themselves related. In fact, Asian Indians are
highly related, and they are one of the fastest growing populations.
The above aside, it is not clear whether the strategy of having a very few children and
taking very good care of them will over the longer term result in fewer or more
survivors than having a lot of children and relying on society to take care of them. It
seems that current cultural policies may have changed the advantages of the two
strategies, but it will take many generations to determine the net result.
Looking longer into the future, it is entirely possible that current humans will be
supplanted by robots or (more probably) cyborgs. What does extinction mean in this case?
Yours,
Bill Morse
Comm
>
> "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:qAz2g.6369$BS2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
>> news:e2988p$3ra$01$1...@news.t-online.com...
>> > "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>> > news:hpc0g.2716$An2...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
>> > I agree that laws make it quite discouraging to raise kids, because
>> > they
>> > impose a lot of long-term duties to parents. But I can't believe that
>> > black parents get away with things that white parents are punished for.
>
>> HAAAA, boy, you need to come here and see for yourself, then. Black KIDS
>> blew up the cop sub station in Ft. Myers awhile back. Where were THEIR
>> parents? LMAO. That's just SO typical. And the Hispanics and illegals
>> bring their kids to work with them at ALL hours - and those kids work.
>> That's illegal - but they do it in droves. What I told you is the truth.
> I
>> don't exagerrate, Sylvia. People find that out all too late, about me.
>
> I just don't get it. The USA has laws, police, and people who don't
> hesitate
> to sue their pizza restaurant over a spilled cappucino. So why on earth is
> there no law enforcement when it comes to illegal immigrants, or
> destructive
> behavior of certain groups?
I don't get it either - in fact, no one does.
>
>> > For me it is okay that children are protected from neglect,
>> > mistreatment
> and
>> > abuse; yet sometimes it's just not reasonable that parents are expected
> to
>> > be "education experts" 24/7. Especially well educated couples might
>> > say,
>> > "we can't afford to have children because we are not rich enough and we
> are
>> > not qualified".
>
>> Well, I see in some communities that every single family there, usually
> one
>> parent households or the grandmother is there - have shit going on that
>> would have their kids taken from them - but oh no, it's the norm for
>> THEM.
>
> Sounds like some communities are given up and declared lawless areas?
Kinda, yeah.
>
>> >> And the reason they are so overpopulated is due to western medicine
>> >> and
>> >> health care helping them out.
>
>> > True, a lot of Third world residents would have died without western
> help.
>
>> The west should NEVER have helped anyone except their own. Wiser people
>> knew that and warned the idiots.
>
> But the West also exploited the minerals and natural resources of Third
> World countries. It seems fair not only to TAKE, but also to GIVE
> something
> back to the local population.
>
No one in history that ever did such things gave back anything. It's called
conquest.
Comm
"Aardvark J. Bandersnatch" <sumb...@micrsfot.com> wrote in message
news:wNN2g.698854$084.635052@attbi_s22...
Yes, they want to tell others what to do/think/feel/etc - but they are also
being told (and wanting that) by someone over them, some leader or
spokesperson. And that is no different from other extremists. They have a
leader, or leaders. Then they go about forcing it on others.
ne...@absamail.co.za
news:wNN2g.698854$084.635052@attbi_s22...
> to breed, especially urgent when the population (or individual) is under
> stress. In the extra-hominid condition, this refers mostly to the physical
> environment, as in not enough food or rain, or whatever. This is an
> attempt to ensure continuation through multiple birth -- as ants, roaches,
> turtles, sharks, and opossums are highly fecund in order to circumvent
> high levels of predation. For the most part, homids propagate through
> devoted attention to fewer off-spring. Under stress, however, hominids
> *tend* toward higher levels of procreation. Since we are no longer quite
> so tied to the physical environment and its imperatives, we are now
> subject to "cultural" and "intellectual" stressors. When individual
> members feel their likelihood of successful propragation and continuation
> is stressed beyond a certain degree, they will switch to fecundity as an
> ensurer. It is counter-intuitive and non-rational, but that's what the
> historic evidence tends to demonstrate.
>
because that's where most people die. Anthropology is not
quantum physics which needs non-intuitive theories.
> Again, however, it is a "mal-adaptation" of procreation under perceived
> stressors.
>
Garbage.
The same way that Ugandans could learn to prevent HIV, so too
they can learn to reduce pregnancies, if only the western
pee-cee-pushers divert resources from 'save the children' to
teaching contraception. Learn from Cuba.
== Chris Glur.
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch
<ne...@absamail.co.za> wrote in message
news:uuydnRFhXc8LXc7Z...@is.co.za...
I"m sure you thought that made sense.
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch
"William Morse" <wdm...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns97B3D15D4...@24.24.2.165...
The result of that strategy might depend upon which stressors affect the
system.
Sylvia Knörr
> "Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:e2eabg$a5m$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
> > "Comm" <n...@spam.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:V5d0g.3578$BS2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > I think PC once started as a set of good intentions: moral standards
against
> > racism, sexism and all kinds of intolerance. Yet I fear the pendulum
went to
> > the other extreme - PC has become a kind of "thought control". That's
just
> > ANOTHER form of intolerance.
> Frankfurt School. There you have it. The thought police. You can't make
> people be tolerant - you can't make people LIKE other people. In a truly
> FREE society, if people wanted to integrate they could do it - and if they
> wanted to segregate they could also do that. And in all spheres of life,
> workplace, schools, clubs, communities, etc. That would be REAL - FREEDOM
> OF CHOICE. What do they fear so much, that they'd legislate against FREE
> CHOICE? That's tyranny, no matter HOW you spell it.
Forced integration can be necessary to overcome a well established apartheid
system, like you had it in the USA until the 60ies. I would not like to have
segregation for public places, public busses or public schools. To have it
on a PRIVATE basis is a whole different thing. I would not like to force a
discotheque owner to open his doors to whoever wants to enter, be it a
skinhead neonazi or an unwashed junkie. He should have a right to
discriminate.
> > "Destruction of European people and culture" was probably not intended
in
> > the first place, but it could be a side effect of too much PC if we
don't
> > do some course corrections.
> I believe it WAS the intention of it the whole while.
Who should have any advantage from the destruction of European people and
culture?
> > Well, nationalism can come as aggressive or as defensive variety. I
reject
> > aggressive nationalism like Hitler's Third Reich, because it shoves
> > national values down other peoples' throats.
> Agree. But there is everything RIGHT about defensive nationalism.
Agreed. Like it is right to defend your home against unwanted intruders.
> The Chinese way to
> > torture illegal immigrants is NOT to my liking, but then - nobody is
> > FORCED to go there.
> Right - and I agree with the Chinese method of handling it. They ASKED
for
> it when they snuck into China and broke Chinese laws.
I wouldn't go as far as to say they ASKED for it. Maybe they were just
ignorant about the laws. But that wouldn't take away China's Right to defend
its borders.
> >> Europeans are not "too civilized" as most people I know say, who agree
> >> with me on these issues. If they were very civilized, even MORE
civilized,
> >> they'd do ANYTHING IT TAKES to preserve their cilivization and its high
> >> standards. ANYTHING it takes! They are too cowardly to ACT, imo. Too
> >> scared that someone might call them a name. How on earth did something
> >> from the twisted minds of a minority of people get to be SO BIG that
> >> everyone is scared of it? I don't understand that. I really don't.
> > Are Europeans too cowardly to act? I don't think so. History shows that
> > Europeans had their share of warfare and bloodshed. I rather think that
> > Europeans tried to mature, and solve problems with peaceful means
instead
> > of waging war or killing those who don't abide our laws.
> Wrong. Europeans are setting themselve up for MORE war and bloodshed and
> conflict and strife and riots. They are having problems right now - but
> they could EASILY solve those problems. They are too cowardly to act.
There are problems, yes, but they can be solved with diplomacy. That's not
the same as cowardice.
> > Just like we teach our children to get along with each others and not
smash
> > each others brains over a desired toy. We have to live up to these
standards
> > if we want our children (or foreigners, or immigrants) to accept them.
> Some foreigners and immigrants WILL NOT accept that as law - no way. That
> is the problem.
That's what law enforcement should be for. Given that you have the proper
laws in the first place...
Which time are you referring to?
> MOST Europeans are in favor of STOPPING all that immigration - and even
> sending them back home. Most Americans are too. Since MOST want that -
why
> aren't we GETTING IT?
I think neither Europeans, nor Americans are in favour of stopping *ALL
THAT* immigration. They just want to stop UNWANTED immigrants. A great deal
of immigrants live among us and cause no problems at all. We need a handle
to filter out the ones who make troubles.
> European history is
> > packed with countless revolutions.
> > For that we have to find our own way of dealing with the present "value
> > clash", which is mainly an "Islam versus Non-Islam" clash.
> Not so. Islamists make their plans very clear - they will overcome you by
> UNARMED invasion and breeding - they even SAY that up front. That Italian
> author exposed it.
Yes, ISLAMISTS say that. But they do not represent all the Muslims. Lots of
Muslims do not care what the radicals say. Although I would like them to
protest against their fanatic brothers-in-faith.
> >> What mistakes? WW2? The mistake was trying to stretch way too far - a
> >> BIG mistake. There is NO atrocity in keeping your own nation in order
> >> for the
> >> natives and indigenous people in your nation - GERMANS. CHRISTIANS of
> >> some kind, maybe not too religious. NOT Moslems. NOT middle
easterners,
> >> NOT blacks. And sure, not MY people either if they are from Turkey and
> >> making freaking trouble there now. (Actually, Turkish people from
Turkey are
> >> VERY differnt from us Turks who are Tatars, the real thing - they also
look
> >> different).
> > Yes I know. I guess Germans are reluctant to vigorously reject the
(mostly
> > Turkish) demands, because we are careful not to slide into such a thing
as
> > the Holocaust once again.
> Yeah, fear fear fear - AFRAID someone will call you a name. Fuck the
fear.
> GET OVER it.
Not just the fear that someone might call us names. More the fear that we
REALLY could go berserk again. A little self-discipline isn't a bad thing,
wouldn't you agree? :-)
> We are aware that deep under our civilized surface
> > there's still a barbaric core, and we have to keep it in check. We have
> > seen what happens when xenophobia gets out of control.
> Bah - it's going to break out sooner or later when push comes to shove -
and
> MILLIONS will die due to it. Trust me - I KNOW that's coming. Everyone
is
> barbaric beneath the civilized core. And WE TURKS know that best of all,
ha
> ha! Tatars ARE Turks - yes. Germans are terrified of being called a
name.
I REALLY prefer it to monitor our barbaric traits. THAT's culture!
> That's all there is to it. I've talked to MANY German vacationers here -
> and they are living under a YOKE that chains their hearts and voices. Rid
> yourselves of that yoke. ok, the holocaust happened. Sure thing. But
do
> you think that's ALL there is to it? Do you think that the people,
regular
> people not party members or Nazi militants, that rose up against Jews did
> that for NO REASON? Oh, there were reasons. There are ALWAYS reasons,
> Sylvia.
What reasons are there to kill thousands of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals,
disabled persons etc? To kill babies, women and seniors? The reasons the
Nazis told us? Come on!
> >> The Tatars there, at that time
> >> (and I later on met quite a few German speaking Tatars when I was a
kid,
> >> they came here after the war) they never EVER made waves or got into
> >> trouble there, nor did they try to insinuate themselves into places of
> >> control and
> >> CHANGE the character of the German people. Germany for GERMANS.
> >> Germany has a RIGHT to be German.
> > If you were not Jewish, and you didn't rock the boat back then,
integration
> > was not an issue. Since Germany has ALWAYS been attracting immigrants
from
> > neighboring countries throughout history, it was no big thing. It was
just
> > that the Nazis had that obsession with Jews.
> Well, why don't you find out WHY they thought that way? I found out -
heh,
> I simply ASKED - and it was easy enough to read what these Nazi writers
back
> there actually wrote about it. GO READ IT. Find out WHY they felt that
> way.
What do you mean? Reading Hitler's "Mein Kampf"?
> >> Well, right now, we have fanatical Christians here banded together so
big
> >> that their vote alone can elect a president. They are the first
Americans
> >> that WANT to be told what to do, what to think, what to believe. Sound
> >> familiar? They got that way due to really objective problems that
> >> overwhelmed their lives - objectively. Next to that we have some
really
> >> far out alternative religions here - sound familiar?
> > It's a bit scaring when people want someone to tell them what to think
and
> > what to do. This "waiting for a strong leader" rings too familiar to my
> > German ear.
> Indeed! It's exactly the same situation. They NEED someone to tell them
> these things because their lives simply and objectively got WAY out of
> control and turned upside down. United they stand - and life DOES get
much
> better for them in the Fundie Christian fold. They are united.
But then, the situation is not EXACTLY the same as it was in the 1930ies.
Just look at mass media, internet or phone communication. Today it is much
more difficult to control them as it was back then.
> > I guess that's what you get if human values are under attack for
> > a while AND economic conditions are deteriorating.
> Yes - you get a Hitler. Which is my point. Are these Frankfurt and other
> assholes THAT stupid that th ey don't know that this PC shit is PROVOKING
it
> all over again? Perhaps they are just innately self-destructive.
No, I think they just got some misconceptions about human nature. :-)
> > There is one thing that I never understood: if the USA has so much
trouble
> > with illegal immigrants all the time, why not solve the problem by
> > establishing a system which allows to IDENTIFY any person beyond
> > reasonable doubt?
> It has to be ENFORCED. The problem is that Big Corporations want the
cheap
> labor. THAT is the problem!
Makes sense.
> > In Germany, there is a law that EVERY citizen has to have an identity
card
> > with the latest address, and we are obliged to inform the department
> > authority immediately when we commute. This is not only the data basis
for
> > every voting list, but it also allows to identify illegals easily, as
soon
> > as they get involved in a police control or any other act of communal
> > interest (like applying for a drivers licence or for a job). This way
> > illegals almost never manage to get their kids to school here, or get
> > medical treatment without revealing their illegal status.
> OH, illegals go to school here and get medical treatment even when they
KNOW
> they are illegals. They leech off our backs off the public dole.
Vampires.
Wouldn't it be easy to catch them there and send them back to where they
came from, after taking their fingerprints?
> > Such an identity system could work for the USA, too, and illegals
wouldn't
> > have much of a chance to live there undiscoverd for years.
> Corporations want them for cheap labor. The gov was thinking of a
national
> identity card - I don't know what happened to that idea. Illegals here
get
> FAKE ID very easily.
With biometric data it should be possible to make such a system pretty safe.
But if it's against the interests of big corporations of a capitalistic
state, it probably can't be be done.
Sylvia Knörr
> > "Aardvark J. Bandersnatch" <sumb...@micrsfot.com> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag
> > news:wNN2g.698854$084.635052@attbi_s22...
> >> Under stress, however, hominids *tend* toward higher
> >> levels of procreation. Since we are no longer quite so tied to the
physical
> >> environment and its imperatives, we are now subject to "cultural" and
> >> "intellectual" stressors. When individual members feel their likelihood
of
> >> successful propragation and continuation is stressed beyond a certain
> >> degree, they will switch to fecundity as an ensurer. It is
counter-intuitive
> >> and non-rational, but that's what the historic evidence tends to
> >> demonstrate.
> > Indeed, and we can watch birth rates decline when people live in an
> > environment/ situation where the likelihood of long-term SURVIVAL of
> > offspring is very high - like it is among wealthy citizens of stable
> > societies.
> > It seems that the European population might go extinct because of a LACK
> > of stress. Isn't it ironic? :-)
> That means the thing to look for and observe over the next few years is
> the increasing stress on European society by the influx of gastarbeiter,
> especially those from non-European countries (like Saudi Arabia, Iraq,
> Iran, the UAE, and such). Are there other possible stressors that might
> lead to European revival?
Maybe the outbreak of a devastating pleague, a large scale meteor impact, or
the invasion of aliens from Mars? :-)
Anyway, I'm not so sure whether EVERY kind of stress will do the trick. I
guess there are other factors adding to it, like lifestyle. Measured by
lifestyle standards (consumption of resources per capita), Europe is a
densely populated continent. Maybe people have some kind of instinct for the
number of persons their environment can bear when they maintain a certain
lifestyle. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors might have achieved a "feeling" of
how many more group members their hunting grounds can support, and when
their resources dwindled, they moved on or stopped breeding for a while.
Some recent people of harsh environments (like the African Kalahari dwellers
!Kung or San) indeed have a system of sexual taboos which include strict
sexual abstinence for several years for couples in a child-rearing phase -
thus they can guarantee that the interval of births is long enough that the
first child is sufficiently autonomous until the next baby is born. This
keeps the overall numbers quite stable.
Although Europeans maintain a quite different lifestyle, we might have as
well reached a limit of how many people our environment can support. Hence,
a dramatic drop of the level of lifestyle MIGHT lead to an increase of
births.
Sylvia Knörr
"William Morse" <wdm...@twcny.rr.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Xns97B3D15D4...@24.24.2.165...
This will be difficult to detect, because people can SWITCH their breeding
strategies due to environment conditions (with stress being just ONE of
them). It seems that ethnic groups to not follow one strategy always and for
all times.
I expect that those family lines which adapt fastest and best, will be the
winners of the race. I see no reason why natural and sexual selection should
get out of fashion within the next generations.
> Looking longer into the future, it is entirely possible that current
humans will be
> supplanted by robots or (more probably) cyborgs. What does extinction mean
in this case?
I hope that the cyborgs will be clever enough to keep a decent human zoo as
an emergency gene pool. Then, in case of any severe cyborg desaster, and if
all else fails, they can return to good old sexual breeding. :-)
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch
"Sylvia Knörr" <Sylvia.Kno...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:e35qj6$krt$02$1...@news.t-online.com...
>
>> Looking longer into the future, it is entirely possible that current
> humans will be
>> supplanted by robots or (more probably) cyborgs. What does extinction
>> mean
> in this case?
>
> I hope that the cyborgs will be clever enough to keep a decent human zoo
> as
> an emergency gene pool. Then, in case of any severe cyborg desaster, and
> if
> all else fails, they can return to good old sexual breeding. :-)
Let's hope they do not make the mistake of keeping my most recent ex-wife in
the zoo...
Then there will be NO breeding at all.
le sigh.
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch
> "Aardvark J. Bandersnatch" <sumb...@micrsfot.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:e0c4g.947392$xm3.308128@attbi_s21...
> Anyway, I'm not so sure whether EVERY kind of stress will do the trick. I
> guess there are other factors adding to it, like lifestyle. Measured by
> lifestyle standards (consumption of resources per capita), Europe is a
> densely populated continent. Maybe people have some kind of instinct for
> the
> number of persons their environment can bear when they maintain a certain
> lifestyle. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors might have achieved a "feeling"
> of
> how many more group members their hunting grounds can support, and when
> their resources dwindled, they moved on or stopped breeding for a while.
> Some recent people of harsh environments (like the African Kalahari
> dwellers
> !Kung or San) indeed have a system of sexual taboos which include strict
> sexual abstinence for several years for couples in a child-rearing phase -
> thus they can guarantee that the interval of births is long enough that
> the
> first child is sufficiently autonomous until the next baby is born. This
> keeps the overall numbers quite stable.
> Although Europeans maintain a quite different lifestyle, we might have as
> well reached a limit of how many people our environment can support.
> Hence,
> a dramatic drop of the level of lifestyle MIGHT lead to an increase of
> births.
You are correct. Not every or any particular kind of stressor will do the
trick. That's why I was wondering which one it would take for folks in Yurp
to turn things around. Sometimes I think that European nations have become
almost as dysfunctional as the good, old US of A.
Sylvia Knörr
How would you know? Sometimes all it needs to cure frigidity is the proper
partner. ;-)
Sylvia Knörr
Is it any wonder? Ever since WW2, the USA is our role model!
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch
When her sister said of her, "That cold, castrating bitch." There's a clue.