rooshvforum.network is a fully functional forum: you can search, register, post new threads etc...
Old accounts are inaccessible: register a new one, or recover it when possible. x


Women reminisce about riding the cock carousel
#51

Women reminisce about riding the cock carousel

Quote:Quote:

That doesn't change that fact that those who reproduce still force the hand of evolution by influencing the genetic character/composition of future generations. That is as close as any individual being can get to directly influencing nature in some significant way.

So what? What difference does it make if I influence nature or not? What difference does it make if humankind nuked the world over? The earth would still be here. New lifeforms would evolve.

Quote:Quote:

Each child carries a piece of that unique code that makes us who/what we are. Each child carries a part of our self into the future, and each child in turn can pass parts of that self to the generations beyond him/her. This is as close to immortality as any human gets-you are dead, but the parts that make you continue to live.

And why is it important to pass your parts on? As long as some of us pass on our parts, it doesn't matter if all of us do. In fact, most humans are 99.9% genetically similar, which is the species way of guaranteeing it's survival. That is, if a lot of us are killed off at once, the survivors still have all the genetic code necessary to continue humanity.

Quote:Quote:

Persistence is the purpose. Adaptation and reproduction both serve this end-to keep the species alive across time, regardless of the environmental challenges faced. Those who fail in either endeavor cease to persist.

Thus, if persistence is your sole criterion, it does not matter pass your genes on or not as long as enough of us do. So even by your own arguments, you still have no reason for reproducing.

But even now, idea that nature has the criterion of persistence as it's purpose is suspect. Toward what goal is nature heading? Why is it heading that way? How is nature guiding evolution?

All of these questions seem ridiculous on its face, and that's why Charles Darwin dominates intellectual thought among biologists today - scientists understand nature as an order that came out of chaos, which is to say, a spontaneous order. No purposes, yet an apparent order.

Contributor at Return of Kings.  I got banned from twatter, which is run by little bitches and weaklings. You can follow me on Gab.

Be sure to check out the easiest mining program around, FreedomXMR.
Reply
#52

Women reminisce about riding the cock carousel

Quote: (12-18-2012 06:25 AM)RawGod Wrote:  

I think you missed Samseau's point, though, about Darwinism and teleology. We can't derive meaning from the direction of nature. What survives and reproduces simply survives and reproduces. This has no inherent value or meaning other than what we give it. I think your use of the terms "genetic winners" and "genetic losers" is a red herring as it seems designed to be conflated with one's personal sense of worth. No-one wants to be branded a loser, right?

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here. As I said above to Samseau, I feel that there is an inherent purpose to it all (persistence), and that this does have some value (or, at the very least, it should to us) as it is what allows us to be here.

The "genetic winners" are those who persist. Of course, I suppose one could argue that this persistence in and of itself has no real value, but at that point I think we're marching into overly nihilistic territory. Our persistence certainly maintains some value, if not to nature as a whole (which, as Samseau noted, could do without us) then certainly to us on a more subjective level (whose lives, and all the pleasures derived therein, are the result of such persistence).

I do not think it irrational for a human to assign some value to the persistence of his/her species. We exist in large part because of that value, and will only continue to do so to the extent that it remains.

Quote:Quote:

As the writer of Ecclesiastes (reputedly King Solomon, with his harem of 1000) said, the battle is not to the swift and the race is not to the swift, but time and chance happens to them all. We don't know what our genetic legacy will be, or our legacy in the realm of ideas. As I said, we'll be dead and derive no benefit. I don't give a damn if by spreading my seed I influence future evolution. Frankly, I don't give a damn if I found a new philosophy which changes the course of history like Lao Tzu or Marx either.

What is not known is not inherently invaluable-the value of future contributions cannot be limited, in my view, by the lack of knowledge of said contributions on the part of the contributor.

You're defining the worth of a future contribution primarily in the context of the individual's ability to benefit from it. This is textbook individualism (that's not an insult), since it gives very little weight (not a single "damn" at all, actually) to the future beyond what can be used to derive pleasure (or knowledge, or some other tangible benefit) for the individual in the now.

We'll just have to agree to disagree here. This view is not invalid, but it is certainly not all there is to things.

Quote:Quote:

Mozart had six or eight kids, two survived to adulthood and neither of them reproduced. So there's no more Mozart genes. His music lives "forever" or until the next Ice Age maybe, but so what? He might have traded that fame in order to live past 35 or have grandkids, but none of us even have the power to make such bargains. If that makes me an individualist, I'm OK with that.

The term "individualist" isn't an insult, just a matter of fact. It also represents the dominant point of view in the western world, so you're not alone.

It should also be noted that I did not state that procreation guaranteed an extended genetic legacy. I noted that those who procreate were the only ones with a chance to maintain that legacy beyond their death.

Yes, those who procreate could watch all of their 3-5 children die prior to adulthood and end up leaving no real genetic legacy at all. They were, however, the only ones who stood a chance of having said legacy to begin with, and more often than not those who take this chance do manage to see their results persist beyond their death.

Quote:Quote:

Each of us only has the present.

My self will only see the present, but the present is far from all-important.

Quote:Quote:

What our egos are invested in, however, is competition with others (other males, in the main, for men like us). We do consider ourselves losers if we fail to gain the resources and attractiveness to mate with attractive women. But with the freedom given by our social structure and modern technology, we no longer have to allow the final step of letting the sperm unite with the egg. So for me, I can rest easier if I'm mating with hot chicks on occasion, and I don't need the "validation" of actual offspring. Maybe I'm a slave to lust or ego, but that's OK with me. We're players, right? That means we know the rules of the game and in full consciousness we take our places and do our best until the whistle blows, after which, it's over.

I would contend that offspring provide more than mere "validation", as I've argued above. Procreation carries more significance than this.

Other than that bit, to the rest I say to each their own. You have a choice and that choice is fine, so long as you're not inaccurately evaluating the consequences (or lack thereof) of this choice and of the alternatives to it.

Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and victory. Know thy enemy but not yourself, wallow in defeat every time.
Reply
#53

Women reminisce about riding the cock carousel

Quote: (12-18-2012 08:42 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

That doesn't change that fact that those who reproduce still force the hand of evolution by influencing the genetic character/composition of future generations. That is as close as any individual being can get to directly influencing nature in some significant way.

So what? What difference does it make if I influence nature or not? What difference does it make if humankind nuked the world over? The earth would still be here. New lifeforms would evolve.

On an individual level, your failure to procreate may not make a huge difference, though that decision is not without consequences on a more localized level (more on those later).

With regards to the latter portion of this statement, I feel that there is an inherent purpose to it all (persistence), and that this does have some value (or, at the very least, it should to us) as it is what allows us to be here.

The "genetic winners" are those who persist. Of course, I suppose one could argue that this persistence of humankind in and of itself has no real value, but at that point I think we're marching into overly nihilistic territory.

Our persistence certainly maintains some value, if not to nature as a whole (which, as you noted earlier, could do without us) then certainly to us on a more subjective level (whose lives, and all the pleasures derived therein, are the result of such persistence).

I do not think it irrational for a human to assign some value to the persistence of his/her species. We exist in large part because of that value, and will only continue to do so to the extent that it remains.

If you believe there is no value to human existence on even a subjective level, then I suppose we'll need to agree to disagree.

Quote:Quote:

And why is it important to pass your parts on? As long as some of us pass on our parts, it doesn't matter if all of us do.

It is not imperative to the existence of the species as a whole that every individual procreate.

The purpose of my argument, however, is to note the significance of the act: those who take part in it gain a measure of genetic influence that those who do not simply cannot obtain. This influence is actually important relative to the future of our species as it influences their nature quite heavily. This influence can be seen as a benefit to those who wish to have an impact on this world (and on humanity) in some way even after they themselves have left it.

You are fully welcome to avoid taking part in the act. My argument is merely challenging the notion that there is no inherent benefit to the contrary position. Those who take the opposing stance can gain something (strong influence, if not direct control, over the genetic and sometimes cultural direction taken by future generations), and that something is not without worth (unless of course, as noted earlier, you simply assign no worth to the existence of humanity at all on even a subjective level).

Quote:Quote:

In fact, most humans are 99.9% genetically similar, which is the species way of guaranteeing it's survival.

We share nearly 99% of our DNA with Chimpanzees. Don't underestimate the value of that .01%. There is plenty of genetic variation within the human species even with 99.9% similarity.

Quote:Quote:


Thus, if persistence is your sole criterion, it does not matter pass your genes on or not as long as enough of us do. So even by your own arguments, you still have no reason for reproducing.

As an individual, I do-see above.

Quote:Quote:

But even now, idea that nature has the criterion of persistence as it's purpose is suspect.

Let me clear this up a bit. I am claiming that, for all living beings subject to nature (which would be every one of them), persistence is the criteria on which they are judged. Their goal is to survive, through reproduction and adaptation, across time and across a multitude of environments provided by nature.

Thus, I am saying that the purpose of the species' is to persist. The purpose of nature as a whole is a much broader question, and one I can't really answer fully.

Quote:Quote:

Toward what goal is nature heading? Why is it heading that way?

The specific purpose of nature itself (its goals and its reasons for having them) is a mystery. The purpose of those beings living under its auspices (which is what my argument is primarily concerned with) is, in my mind, much more obvious. Their job is to persist via adaptation and procreation, regardless of the challenges nature throws at them.

Quote:Quote:

How is nature guiding evolution?

By weeding out those who fail to persist.

Where is nature guiding this evolution and why is it doing so? These things I do not know.

Know your enemy and know yourself, find naught in fear for 100 battles. Know yourself but not your enemy, find level of loss and victory. Know thy enemy but not yourself, wallow in defeat every time.
Reply
#54

Women reminisce about riding the cock carousel

Quote: (12-17-2012 03:16 AM)Norset Wrote:  

Neil: I think the sentiment is that men adapt to the sexual reality defined by women. The male will always per default try to maximize his sexual access. If women are sluts, men adapt and become players. If women are chaste and feminine, men make civilization. Therefore, it's not a double standard - in this dance, the women always lead.

There are two-sides to this frame for me. Sure, you can go out and reap the benefits of a sluten-ized culture led by women and ultimately bra-burning feminism. Indulge, they're whores, why the hell not?

Girls don't get my full sexual attention or my full interest overall by following their lead, otherwise I'd have a beta-core. Sure at first I'll follow their lead, hell, I'll even say the words; "I'm following your lead...(which any retarded girl with half a brain cell would know that's reverse psych)" keeps the interactions more liberal and you get to find out sooner what the girl is truly about. If she thinks your "cool with anything," she'll slip up faster and uncover hidden truths. The woman can follow my lead or kiss my ass goodbye after I've reached a threshold of confidence that I know who or what she is.

Some of the cutest girls I've known rode the carousel for years, flaunting it to everyone, and I can't think of one of them who has had a difficult time landing a white-knight husband to take for all his $$$ or actually settle down with and tame her own ways presentably enough to pop out 2-5 kids and live a retired whore's life.

"it's not a double standard," true, and woman will always use that as an argument. I don't let them, and it helps me retain leadership with them.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)