no, it's not hard to understand or difficult to prove. the same can be observed on countless other species that don't follow the "create 10,000, play the odds on who survives" game. the fewer the offspring, the more time spent investing in them and protecting them, as a simple survival necessity. homo sapiens takes this to an extreme, investing years, and sexual maturity comes very late as opposed to other creatures. so it's called the reproductive imperative: protect your offspring before they reach sexual maturity, to preserve the integrity of your own genes. it's not hard to understand and it is not a hard question to answer
you're not representing all the variables. getting a female pregnant is not the whole story, she also has to raise a child. so you need a female with enough resources, presence of mind, and skills to do so
culture X, which impregnates females at first menarche, will produce poor offspring. culture Y, which lets females decide when they want to get pregnant, which will naturally be a lot later, will produce richer offspring, more robust physically and mentally, since those children will have more resources devoted to them with more mature mothers. therefore, culture X will naturally be driven to extinction by culture Y
those are nice red herrings, but an adult who is going to change a child's self-image, confidence, ideas about how sexuality works, etc., is a threat to the furtherance of your genes, and is therefore an enemy of the reproductive imperative. your interesting cultural and historical anecdotes does not nullify that straightforward point. japan has strong cultural norms, doing away with the need for hard laws. tribes in new guinea also engaged in cannibalism. therefore, cannibalism should be considered ok? cute anecdotes does not a coherent argument make
we are talking about pedophilia, which is sexual attraction to the physically immature. in contemporary times, yes, we also extend protections to the physically mature but psychologically immature (teenagers)
but that is a different subject, and you can't make a valid point by changing the subject
homosexuality involves consenting adults. it does not perpetuate genes, but nor does it suppress someone else's, such as a child's. it is impossible for a child to consent to a sex act (informed consent: he or she doesn't know what they are getting into for the lollipop)
violence is an inherent aspect of the human condition, used to extend genetic reach just as much as snuff out someone elses. therefore, it is a valid expression from the point of view of the gene's desire to be maximally expressed. you see, you have to recall: my post wasn't a moral or ideological stand, i was merely noting that the aversion to pedophilia is an atavistic, evolutionary bias: protect your genes form those who would damage the continuation of your genetic line. which is the threat pedophilia represents
"think of the children" is not simple hysteria, it's the reproductive imperative, it is an interrupt switch, like hunger or the need for shelter, that precedes all moral reason, all ideological posturing, all sense of right and wrong
in other words, i am merely noting that the opposition to pedophilia runs deeper than anything going on in the frontal cortex, and is not dispelled with simpleminded arguments about freedom and fascism
I look at the comments and I feel like I am at a NAMBLA convention
"think of the children" is just dumb useless hysteria, right?
you keep believing that
what i see is the reproductive imperative at work: not the social desire, but the biological need to produce healthy children. anything that is a threat to that basically means a threat to the continuation of your genes. therefore, yes, simple possession of pictures of children in sexually suggestive ways is pretty much an atavistic, primal declaration of war on the integrity of the reproduction of homo sapiens. sexual contact with children damages their psychological development in terms of self-image, identity, self-esteem, etc: weakening their ability to successfully pass on their parents' genes when they are adults
so wax and wane philosophical about free rights and liberties and fascism and hysteria, blah blah blah... zzz
your high and noble principles just ran into a buzzsaw: sexualizing children basically means going to war with the forces of evolution
the urge to protect children is primal, savage, rooted at a spot as deep as the need for food and shelter. there's a reason even in prison otherwise amoral impulse driven convicts will happily beat a pedophile to death: the opposition to the sexualization of children is something rooted so deeply in our biological makeup that no rationalization of yours will ever root around them
even just possession of pictures puts you at war with human society not on the grounds of abstract legal principles, but on the grounds of innate biological drive. and you're going to lose, either at the end of the parent's gun, in the courtroom, or at the end of a broom handle in prison
so any of you out there in possession of child porn and who thinks it harmless and everything is just hysteria: i strongly advise you to get rid of it, and do whatever the hell you can possibly do to get rid of this desire of yours to see children in a sexual manner
it will not end well for you otherwise. your compulsion is at war with the reproductive imperative, and you're not going to win
oh and ps: just possessing pictures of children (not teenagers who are physically mature) is indeed harmful: it gets produced somewhere. your possession and desire for that product is called demand. demand invokes supply. it is a simple economic formula, whether real money is involved or not. go ahead and try to argue around that all you want
I got a Droid Bionic in September, no tethering plan (Verizon, New York City). I intended to get a tethering plan later, should I need it
My laptop has bluetooth. I paired the phone and the laptop just to do it and see what speaker sharing was like, etc. I right clicked on the phone when it showed up on my laptop's list of available bluetooth devices, and there was a menu option I never saw before: "Join Personal Area Network"
I clicked it and it just works.
I never heard of such a thing before. I realize you can set up bluetooth as a DUN modem, which is limited by tethering, but this is a different protocol. Maybe Android enabled it with its recent OS build, and Verizon is not aware of it due to lack of exposure (most laptops don't have bluetooth).
Or maybe one day I'm going to try this, and it just stops working, due to Verizon finally catching on (this post won't help). Or maybe they don't have any contingencies to catch and stop this kind of tethering. I don't know what is going on. All I know is I'm currently tethering for free, easily, with no mods.
no one is out to destroy capitalism. i'm certain some crackpot in the occupy wall street crowd is, but most of them just want a job, and a secure middle class life. you get that by destroying CORPORATE socialism, which is the system we live under. no one wants people waiting in line to be handed toilet paper on alternate wednesdays, got it? we want capitalism, which is NOT the system we live under in the USA, if you have been paying any attention
i know: you heard on Faux News that only the occupy wall street crowd is violent, and the tea party is peaceful. what a well behaved propagandized automaton you are, dutifully reporting and believing the lies that are spoonfed to you. you make a good slave
no fucking way word patterns indicate psychopathology you ignorant motherfucker
i'll take a fucking broomstick and ram it down your fucking gullet if i hear one fucking peep from your ignorant piehole about word patterns indicating a propensity for psychopathology and then rape your mother with the same fucking broomstick. are fucking listening to me?
I look at the comments and I feel like I am at a NAMBLA convention
"think of the children" is just dumb useless hysteria, right?
you keep believing that
what i see is the reproductive imperative at work: not the social desire, but the biological need to produce healthy children. anything that is a threat to that basically means a threat to the continuation of your genes. therefore, yes, simple possession of pictures of children in sexually suggestive ways is pretty much an atavistic, primal declaration of war on the integrity of the reproduction of homo sapiens. sexual contact with children damages their psychological development in terms of self-image, identity, self-esteem, etc: weakening their ability to successfully pass on their parents genes when they are adults
so wax and wane philosophical about free rights and liberties and fascism and hysteria, blah blah blah... zzz
your high and noble principles just ran into a buzzsaw: sexualizing children basically means going to war with the forces of evolution
the urge to protect children is primal, savage, rooted at a spot as deep as the need for food and shelter. there's a reason even in prison otherwise amoral impulse driven convicts will happily beat a pedophile to death: the opposition to the sexualizition of children is something rooted so deeply in our biological makeup that no rationalization of yours will ever root around them
sexualizing children, even just with possession of pictures, puts you at war with human society not on the grounds of abstract legal principles, but on the grounds of innate biological drive. and you're going to lose, either at the end of the parent's gun, in the courtroom, or at the end of a broom handle in prison
so any of you out there in possession of child porn and who thinks it harmless and everything is just hysteria: i strongly advise you to get rid of it, and do whatever the hell you can possibly do to get rid of this desire of yours to see children in a sexual manner
it will not end well for you otherwise. your compulsion is at war with the reproductive imperative, and you're not going to win
oh and ps: just possessing pictures of children (not teenagers who are physically mature) is indeed harmful: it gets produced somewhere. your possession and desire for that product is called demand. demand invokes supply. it is a simple economic formula, whether real money is involved or not.so go ahead and argue around that all you want, you are an idiot if you deny the concept of supply and demand
who is having the national agenda ripped away from him by genuinely stupid and propagandized fools
why?
because you need fire in the belly to lead the mob that is the general public, in any country, in any era. cold rational discourse doesn't cut it. cold rationality should of course dictate your agenda. but achieving that agenda is all about passionately summoning your allies and passionately dispelling your enemies, not dispassionately reasoning with people, especially people who can't ever be reasoned with
and i'm sorry, but knuckledraggers pointing out one minor flaw in your argument will happen no matter how careful you are. the point is to not take their criticism seriously and soberly, the point is to call them out for being the clueless antiscience idiots they are
you don't respond to a dumb thug wearing brass knuckles menacing you with a more erudite scientific argument. you kneecap him. i am being figurative, of course, i am talking about rhetorical debate, not real world violence
As is occurring on the national stage with the feedback we are giving Obama, sometimes you have to roll up your sleeves and go on the attack. Ideas, not people, that is, because you can't cede all bombast and fire in the belly to one side of the debate, or they dominate it.
Yes, in one regard, if one side is all zealotry and the other side is measured, people gravitate to cooler heads. On the other hand, as is the case with climate change deniers, cool heads do not sway emotional debates, and you need to equal the fire in their bellies, or cool heads just means quiet marginalized heads that lose influence, as with politics in Washington DC.
What I am saying to you is: it's ok to get heated. It doesn't make the way harder, it simply shows passion, and people respond to that too, just as much as they respond to cooler heads prevailing. It depends upon the arena, and it depends upon how emotional the topic is.
We can't let those who are inclined to drink Faux news propaganda purchased by oil and coal concerns dominate the debate. Politics is not an oak paneled study with pipe smoking professors, calmly discussing great ideas in measured undertones. Politics is verbal bloodsport, and, as a proud card carrying Liberal, I would say to other Liberals that it's time to show as much passion as those on the Right do, as with Occupy Wall Street, because measured academic tones do not win policy debates in this country anymore, I am sorry, but it's true. People ridicule Occupy Wall Street because they don't have a clue what they are fighting for. That doesn't matter. What they represent is passion and anger. And you need that just as much, if not more, than cold academic reasoning.
So you know what? Time for the zealots on the left to batter the zealots on the right (rhetorically, that is, real world violence is a definite loser). Show the passion. We need more howling zealots on the Left, the Left in general needs some more fire in the belly, whether you or they realize it or not. Cold impassionate United Nations style bureaucratic snoozefests don't win political battles. Time for verbal bloodsport. Time for verbal carpetbombing. Or the agenda of what makes sense is going to get shouted down by the corporation purchased and propagandized feeble dimwits on the Right.
We don't live in an Ivory Tower. We live down here, in the mud. So roll up your sleeves, and grab a rhetorical sledgehammer, or get out of my way, and let me do some verbal clobbering for you.
Earlier midmillenial cool downs were due to a volcano in Iceland and other solar minimums as well.
Look, I'm infuriated by climate change denying morons myself, but rewriting history and ignoring basic science is not how you defeat those losers. Simple repetition of obvious scientific facts about man made warming is how you defeat oil and coal industry propaganda kool aid drinkers, not reimaging the plot of "Avatar."
i'll take the trained, professional, and most importantly accountable police without local knowledge, over the local idiot with a dubious agenda, a weak perceptive ability, and a questionable grasp on morality
People like you who confuse stopping a crime in action with vigilantism are just stupid idiots who need to be shouted down and humiliated for being idiots.
Intent matters on all judgments in this world. That is why, for example, we have legal concepts like first degree murder, for a carefully planned cold blooded execution, and involuntary manslaughter, where a moment's distraction on the road means you unintentionally killed someone. Every single moral and legal system in the world evaluates INTENT.
By the same token you need to evaluate the INTENT of Awlaki. You need to examine WHAT the man was fighting for: medieval ultraconservative insanity, and the MEANS he was willing to go to achieve that goal: the mass murder of innocent civilians in peacetime.
If you cannot consider these concepts when evaluating situations like this, you are simply announcing yourself as a hamfisted simpleton who is completely and utterly without the intellectual faculties to comment in any valid or useful way on this topic.
Stick with video games, moron. You are simply not bright enough to comment on nuanced legal and moral questions.
Slashdot Mirror
no, it's not hard to understand or difficult to prove. the same can be observed on countless other species that don't follow the "create 10,000, play the odds on who survives" game. the fewer the offspring, the more time spent investing in them and protecting them, as a simple survival necessity. homo sapiens takes this to an extreme, investing years, and sexual maturity comes very late as opposed to other creatures. so it's called the reproductive imperative: protect your offspring before they reach sexual maturity, to preserve the integrity of your own genes. it's not hard to understand and it is not a hard question to answer
you're not representing all the variables. getting a female pregnant is not the whole story, she also has to raise a child. so you need a female with enough resources, presence of mind, and skills to do so
culture X, which impregnates females at first menarche, will produce poor offspring. culture Y, which lets females decide when they want to get pregnant, which will naturally be a lot later, will produce richer offspring, more robust physically and mentally, since those children will have more resources devoted to them with more mature mothers. therefore, culture X will naturally be driven to extinction by culture Y
well then you explain the source of the intensity of the emotional response. this should prove loopy
those are nice red herrings, but an adult who is going to change a child's self-image, confidence, ideas about how sexuality works, etc., is a threat to the furtherance of your genes, and is therefore an enemy of the reproductive imperative. your interesting cultural and historical anecdotes does not nullify that straightforward point. japan has strong cultural norms, doing away with the need for hard laws. tribes in new guinea also engaged in cannibalism. therefore, cannibalism should be considered ok? cute anecdotes does not a coherent argument make
confusing the idea of protecting adults with the idea of protecting children is a weak troll or stupidity. you choose
LOL
we are talking about pedophilia, which is sexual attraction to the physically immature. in contemporary times, yes, we also extend protections to the physically mature but psychologically immature (teenagers)
but that is a different subject, and you can't make a valid point by changing the subject
agreed
homosexuality involves consenting adults. it does not perpetuate genes, but nor does it suppress someone else's, such as a child's. it is impossible for a child to consent to a sex act (informed consent: he or she doesn't know what they are getting into for the lollipop)
violence is an inherent aspect of the human condition, used to extend genetic reach just as much as snuff out someone elses. therefore, it is a valid expression from the point of view of the gene's desire to be maximally expressed. you see, you have to recall: my post wasn't a moral or ideological stand, i was merely noting that the aversion to pedophilia is an atavistic, evolutionary bias: protect your genes form those who would damage the continuation of your genetic line. which is the threat pedophilia represents
"think of the children" is not simple hysteria, it's the reproductive imperative, it is an interrupt switch, like hunger or the need for shelter, that precedes all moral reason, all ideological posturing, all sense of right and wrong
in other words, i am merely noting that the opposition to pedophilia runs deeper than anything going on in the frontal cortex, and is not dispelled with simpleminded arguments about freedom and fascism
so frame jobs are a valid argument against fighting child porn?
I look at the comments and I feel like I am at a NAMBLA convention
"think of the children" is just dumb useless hysteria, right?
you keep believing that
what i see is the reproductive imperative at work: not the social desire, but the biological need to produce healthy children. anything that is a threat to that basically means a threat to the continuation of your genes. therefore, yes, simple possession of pictures of children in sexually suggestive ways is pretty much an atavistic, primal declaration of war on the integrity of the reproduction of homo sapiens. sexual contact with children damages their psychological development in terms of self-image, identity, self-esteem, etc: weakening their ability to successfully pass on their parents' genes when they are adults
so wax and wane philosophical about free rights and liberties and fascism and hysteria, blah blah blah... zzz
your high and noble principles just ran into a buzzsaw: sexualizing children basically means going to war with the forces of evolution
the urge to protect children is primal, savage, rooted at a spot as deep as the need for food and shelter. there's a reason even in prison otherwise amoral impulse driven convicts will happily beat a pedophile to death: the opposition to the sexualization of children is something rooted so deeply in our biological makeup that no rationalization of yours will ever root around them
even just possession of pictures puts you at war with human society not on the grounds of abstract legal principles, but on the grounds of innate biological drive. and you're going to lose, either at the end of the parent's gun, in the courtroom, or at the end of a broom handle in prison
so any of you out there in possession of child porn and who thinks it harmless and everything is just hysteria: i strongly advise you to get rid of it, and do whatever the hell you can possibly do to get rid of this desire of yours to see children in a sexual manner
it will not end well for you otherwise. your compulsion is at war with the reproductive imperative, and you're not going to win
oh and ps: just possessing pictures of children (not teenagers who are physically mature) is indeed harmful: it gets produced somewhere. your possession and desire for that product is called demand. demand invokes supply. it is a simple economic formula, whether real money is involved or not. go ahead and try to argue around that all you want
I got a Droid Bionic in September, no tethering plan (Verizon, New York City). I intended to get a tethering plan later, should I need it
My laptop has bluetooth. I paired the phone and the laptop just to do it and see what speaker sharing was like, etc. I right clicked on the phone when it showed up on my laptop's list of available bluetooth devices, and there was a menu option I never saw before: "Join Personal Area Network"
I clicked it and it just works.
I never heard of such a thing before. I realize you can set up bluetooth as a DUN modem, which is limited by tethering, but this is a different protocol. Maybe Android enabled it with its recent OS build, and Verizon is not aware of it due to lack of exposure (most laptops don't have bluetooth).
Or maybe one day I'm going to try this, and it just stops working, due to Verizon finally catching on (this post won't help). Or maybe they don't have any contingencies to catch and stop this kind of tethering. I don't know what is going on. All I know is I'm currently tethering for free, easily, with no mods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_area_network
no one is out to destroy capitalism. i'm certain some crackpot in the occupy wall street crowd is, but most of them just want a job, and a secure middle class life. you get that by destroying CORPORATE socialism, which is the system we live under. no one wants people waiting in line to be handed toilet paper on alternate wednesdays, got it? we want capitalism, which is NOT the system we live under in the USA, if you have been paying any attention
no, attacking democratic lawmakers:
http://gawker.com/5501717/tea-party-vigilantes-out-for-liberal-blood
i know: you heard on Faux News that only the occupy wall street crowd is violent, and the tea party is peaceful. what a well behaved propagandized automaton you are, dutifully reporting and believing the lies that are spoonfed to you. you make a good slave
oh... yeah
no fucking way word patterns indicate psychopathology you ignorant motherfucker
i'll take a fucking broomstick and ram it down your fucking gullet if i hear one fucking peep from your ignorant piehole about word patterns indicating a propensity for psychopathology and then rape your mother with the same fucking broomstick. are fucking listening to me?
I look at the comments and I feel like I am at a NAMBLA convention
"think of the children" is just dumb useless hysteria, right?
you keep believing that
what i see is the reproductive imperative at work: not the social desire, but the biological need to produce healthy children. anything that is a threat to that basically means a threat to the continuation of your genes. therefore, yes, simple possession of pictures of children in sexually suggestive ways is pretty much an atavistic, primal declaration of war on the integrity of the reproduction of homo sapiens. sexual contact with children damages their psychological development in terms of self-image, identity, self-esteem, etc: weakening their ability to successfully pass on their parents genes when they are adults
so wax and wane philosophical about free rights and liberties and fascism and hysteria, blah blah blah... zzz
your high and noble principles just ran into a buzzsaw: sexualizing children basically means going to war with the forces of evolution
the urge to protect children is primal, savage, rooted at a spot as deep as the need for food and shelter. there's a reason even in prison otherwise amoral impulse driven convicts will happily beat a pedophile to death: the opposition to the sexualizition of children is something rooted so deeply in our biological makeup that no rationalization of yours will ever root around them
sexualizing children, even just with possession of pictures, puts you at war with human society not on the grounds of abstract legal principles, but on the grounds of innate biological drive. and you're going to lose, either at the end of the parent's gun, in the courtroom, or at the end of a broom handle in prison
so any of you out there in possession of child porn and who thinks it harmless and everything is just hysteria: i strongly advise you to get rid of it, and do whatever the hell you can possibly do to get rid of this desire of yours to see children in a sexual manner
it will not end well for you otherwise. your compulsion is at war with the reproductive imperative, and you're not going to win
oh and ps: just possessing pictures of children (not teenagers who are physically mature) is indeed harmful: it gets produced somewhere. your possession and desire for that product is called demand. demand invokes supply. it is a simple economic formula, whether real money is involved or not.so go ahead and argue around that all you want, you are an idiot if you deny the concept of supply and demand
Michael Mann directed "The Last of the Mohicans." His sympathies are obviously with Native Americans.
bad analogies
who is having the national agenda ripped away from him by genuinely stupid and propagandized fools
why?
because you need fire in the belly to lead the mob that is the general public, in any country, in any era. cold rational discourse doesn't cut it. cold rationality should of course dictate your agenda. but achieving that agenda is all about passionately summoning your allies and passionately dispelling your enemies, not dispassionately reasoning with people, especially people who can't ever be reasoned with
and i'm sorry, but knuckledraggers pointing out one minor flaw in your argument will happen no matter how careful you are. the point is to not take their criticism seriously and soberly, the point is to call them out for being the clueless antiscience idiots they are
you don't respond to a dumb thug wearing brass knuckles menacing you with a more erudite scientific argument. you kneecap him. i am being figurative, of course, i am talking about rhetorical debate, not real world violence
No, JoeMerchant is right.
As is occurring on the national stage with the feedback we are giving Obama, sometimes you have to roll up your sleeves and go on the attack. Ideas, not people, that is, because you can't cede all bombast and fire in the belly to one side of the debate, or they dominate it.
Yes, in one regard, if one side is all zealotry and the other side is measured, people gravitate to cooler heads. On the other hand, as is the case with climate change deniers, cool heads do not sway emotional debates, and you need to equal the fire in their bellies, or cool heads just means quiet marginalized heads that lose influence, as with politics in Washington DC.
What I am saying to you is: it's ok to get heated. It doesn't make the way harder, it simply shows passion, and people respond to that too, just as much as they respond to cooler heads prevailing. It depends upon the arena, and it depends upon how emotional the topic is.
We can't let those who are inclined to drink Faux news propaganda purchased by oil and coal concerns dominate the debate. Politics is not an oak paneled study with pipe smoking professors, calmly discussing great ideas in measured undertones. Politics is verbal bloodsport, and, as a proud card carrying Liberal, I would say to other Liberals that it's time to show as much passion as those on the Right do, as with Occupy Wall Street, because measured academic tones do not win policy debates in this country anymore, I am sorry, but it's true. People ridicule Occupy Wall Street because they don't have a clue what they are fighting for. That doesn't matter. What they represent is passion and anger. And you need that just as much, if not more, than cold academic reasoning.
So you know what? Time for the zealots on the left to batter the zealots on the right (rhetorically, that is, real world violence is a definite loser). Show the passion. We need more howling zealots on the Left, the Left in general needs some more fire in the belly, whether you or they realize it or not. Cold impassionate United Nations style bureaucratic snoozefests don't win political battles. Time for verbal bloodsport. Time for verbal carpetbombing. Or the agenda of what makes sense is going to get shouted down by the corporation purchased and propagandized feeble dimwits on the Right.
We don't live in an Ivory Tower. We live down here, in the mud. So roll up your sleeves, and grab a rhetorical sledgehammer, or get out of my way, and let me do some verbal clobbering for you.
The Left needs more fire in its belly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1815_eruption_of_Mount_Tambora
Earlier midmillenial cool downs were due to a volcano in Iceland and other solar minimums as well.
Look, I'm infuriated by climate change denying morons myself, but rewriting history and ignoring basic science is not how you defeat those losers. Simple repetition of obvious scientific facts about man made warming is how you defeat oil and coal industry propaganda kool aid drinkers, not reimaging the plot of "Avatar."
i'll take the trained, professional, and most importantly accountable police without local knowledge, over the local idiot with a dubious agenda, a weak perceptive ability, and a questionable grasp on morality
People like you who confuse stopping a crime in action with vigilantism are just stupid idiots who need to be shouted down and humiliated for being idiots.
spoken like a vigilante
No.
Intent matters on all judgments in this world. That is why, for example, we have legal concepts like first degree murder, for a carefully planned cold blooded execution, and involuntary manslaughter, where a moment's distraction on the road means you unintentionally killed someone. Every single moral and legal system in the world evaluates INTENT.
By the same token you need to evaluate the INTENT of Awlaki. You need to examine WHAT the man was fighting for: medieval ultraconservative insanity, and the MEANS he was willing to go to achieve that goal: the mass murder of innocent civilians in peacetime.
If you cannot consider these concepts when evaluating situations like this, you are simply announcing yourself as a hamfisted simpleton who is completely and utterly without the intellectual faculties to comment in any valid or useful way on this topic.
Stick with video games, moron. You are simply not bright enough to comment on nuanced legal and moral questions.