Jump to content

Posthumanism ala ATEO


LS

Recommended Posts

#1 Trans kids

 

 

It also runs into a different topic all together, which is basically the "degenerate" lifestyle of the LGBT community. Promiscuous sexual practices taken to the extreme (hundreds and or thousands of partners, large portion of whom are strangers), high rates of mental illness and instability, high rates of STD infection, etc.. etc.. You can't just pretend a group of people is "perfectly normal" when they have such negative statistical correlations that are orders of magnitude higher than the 'general populace'.

 

 

 

Basically, you're free to do as you please as an adult.

 

 

In all seriousness, do you attribute the alternative culture of LGBT (and truly, you're painting with a broad brush - men who have sex with men (MSM) are the main demographic driving these statistics on virtually every metric) on some genetic predisposition to 'degeneracy' or do you consider that the culture of cruising, glory-holing, hookup apps and back-alley meetups is the ultimate result, reaction and response to decades of anti-gay rhetoric and suppression? Lack of education leads to poor sexual behavior, both physically and socially; and MSM don't have tricky things like accidental pregnancy to interfere with their momentum. Add to that the natural inclination of marginalized groups to double down on concepts of identity and culture, and it's no stretch to see these groups embracing a lifestyle that serves the dual purpose of satisfying the desires of its community and flies in the face of its oppressors.

 

Overall I agree with your position. While I don't necessarily feel that the state, in its current situation, is obligated to its trans citizens to aid them in achieving their desired orientation, that ultimately falls into a category of 'why can't we/how do we healthcare better'

 

#2. Abortion

 

 

You simply cannot rule out the positive impacts of basically reducing unwanted children from a society.

 

 

You've addressed the front end of the argument, which is regulating the abortions themselves - but 'reduction' does not equal 'elimination'. How does the State of Danger manage the inevitable ward of the state? Those that argue the hardest for pro-life by and large have no interest in dealing with the consequences of outlawing abortions - to date, no one has put forth a plan (that i've seen) that seeks to solve the problem back-to-front; that is to say, no one has said 'let's make adoption and foster care better for huge numbers of unwanted children, then begin to take steps to reduce and ultimately eliminate those numbers'. Is it logical, or fair, for people to only carry water for one piece of a problem?

 

#3. Crime

 

No arguments here, all are very valid points.

 

I personally believe in a radical approach to capital punishment, which is to eliminate it entirely. I believe that the death penalty punishes everyone BUT the guilty party, as people who commit crimes deserving of the death penalty tend to be accepting of their execution or generally unbothered by the idea. Families of victims are denied closure for years while the killer awaits his sentence, and then get to sit in the room and watch that man die - this rarely provides a true sense of justice to the aggrieved, and is more likely to add further trauma since, y'know, they watched someone die. So eliminate it. Unless your society is pathological enough to proudly say 'honestly, we're just making room in our prisons', become a society that does not murder people. Lead by example. The culture will follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

#1 Trans kids

 

In all seriousness, do you attribute the alternative culture of LGBT (and truly, you're painting with a broad brush - men who have sex with men (MSM) are the main demographic driving these statistics on virtually every metric) on some genetic predisposition to 'degeneracy' or do you consider that the culture of cruising, glory-holing, hookup apps and back-alley meetups is the ultimate result, reaction and response to decades of anti-gay rhetoric and suppression? Lack of education leads to poor sexual behavior, both physically and socially; and MSM don't have tricky things like accidental pregnancy to interfere with their momentum. Add to that the natural inclination of marginalized groups to double down on concepts of identity and culture, and it's no stretch to see these groups embracing a lifestyle that serves the dual purpose of satisfying the desires of its community and flies in the face of its oppressors.

 

Overall I agree with your position. While I don't necessarily feel that the state, in its current situation, is obligated to its trans citizens to aid them in achieving their desired orientation, that ultimately falls into a category of 'why can't we/how do we healthcare better'

 

I think it's cultural, but there probably is a genetic factor, same reason gay men tend to have a higher % of +120 IQ's than heterosexual men. Milo's theory was mother nature experiments on the fringes, sort of thing. But there are some trouble with the statistics just in and of them selves, to be sure. Like how many gay or bisexual men live as heterosexual just to conform to social norms? That's not as big an issue today as it was in the past, but that's certainly something that probably should be considered. I don't think there's any doubt as to the public health and also personal health risks associated with that lifestyle. Much the same as women who fill and satisfy stereotypical gender roles and statistically happier than ones who don't. These old school cultural memes of ours may get a reactionary, this is shit, analysis. But maybe we ought to take a second look at what such things as like monogamous relationships, and not be so quick to dismiss them. That's not to step on the personal freedom to do otherwise, but we certainly shouldn't educate kids to the myth that you can and will be just as happy and fulfilled as a person if you suck hundreds of stranger's dicks in alleyways on methamphetamine, as you would be raising a family; just because we don't want to hurt the feelings of a group of people that include a fair number of people who either participate or support the idea that they're fine and dandy practices.

 

How it is to be addressed, entirely another issue, education only goes so far. I think the LGBT community needs to police itself to an extent, as I do with pretty much any and all communities.

 

#2. Abortion

 

You've addressed the front end of the argument, which is regulating the abortions themselves - but 'reduction' does not equal 'elimination'. How does the State of Danger manage the inevitable ward of the state? Those that argue the hardest for pro-life by and large have no interest in dealing with the consequences of outlawing abortions - to date, no one has put forth a plan (that i've seen) that seeks to solve the problem back-to-front; that is to say, no one has said 'let's make adoption and foster care better for huge numbers of unwanted children, then begin to take steps to reduce and ultimately eliminate those numbers'. Is it logical, or fair, for people to only carry water for one piece of a problem?

 

You'd have to work on eliminating the social stigma for adoption. Like really, it's massively fucked up telling a kid "yeah well, you're adopted" is a pretty serious childhood insult. Elimination if never going to be possible, to be honest. You'll always have some kids without parents. You'd probably have to weight things like the economic impact of high rates of adoption, and thereby lower numbers of kids in group foster care. And all that, and look to ways to financially incentivize people to adopt. But also try and push for a cultural change that doesn't treat adopted children as basically second class kids. I can't speak too much on the matter, as I'm not really well education on the topic of adoption. But I also don't think anything I've proposed with regards to abortion will increase the number of orphans. Orphans are sort of another matter, and I'd be happy to address it, but I'd like to get better educated on it.

 

#3. Crime

 

No arguments here, all are very valid points.

 

I personally believe in a radical approach to capital punishment, which is to eliminate it entirely. I believe that the death penalty punishes everyone BUT the guilty party, as people who commit crimes deserving of the death penalty tend to be accepting of their execution or generally unbothered by the idea. Families of victims are denied closure for years while the killer awaits his sentence, and then get to sit in the room and watch that man die - this rarely provides a true sense of justice to the aggrieved, and is more likely to add further trauma since, y'know, they watched someone die. So eliminate it. Unless your society is pathological enough to proudly say 'honestly, we're just making room in our prisons', become a society that does not murder people. Lead by example. The culture will follow.

 

California has a really good takedown of capital punishment, which was that death row cost like 10 times more than life in prison; so just say fuck it and save money. And I'll say it bluntly, if that's the case, then yeah fuck it. Punishing criminals is basically the last priority of a public safety/criminal justice system. The primary concerns are to deter people from committing crimes, and should that fail, to try and get them onto a path where they won't do it again. Not to basically dangle people over a pit of freedoms, looking to punish them for exercising said freedom in ways society has just sort of unintentionally convened on to do so. We have to do stuff as simple as look at laws and ask what public good it serves to punish people for not complying with said law. What's the cost vs what's the benefit.

 

I only really think about capital punishment for cases where there's zero doubt that people are guilty, my favorite case in Anders Breivik from Norway. There's police helicopter footage of him shooting kids. In such a case, take him out back and shoot him, be done with it. That's assuming there's not some obvious avenue of rehabilitation I'm/we're missing.

Edited by Donald J. Trump
Link to comment
Share on other sites

#4. Mass Shootings AKA The Artist Formerly Known As Domestic Terrorism (specifically non-political events such as Sandy Hook, Vegas (?), Pulse, GA Tech, etc)

 

Basically I don't think these are as problematic as people make them out to be. That's not to say we shouldn't be concerned, but from a strictly statistical analysis of the matter, Mass Shootings kill a tiny number of people. About eight times as many accidentally drown in swimming pools every year. Estimates put medical error as the cause of ~250k deaths a year. Mass shootings are ~400 total a year, and that's based on 2016 which is turning out to be a particularly bad year. There's certainly room to talk about legitimate gun law reform, but really the "Mass Shooting" or really "Mass Casualty" 'problem' is primarily a mental health one. We shouldn't dismiss cases of actual terrorism like the Boston Marathon Bombing, but I'm focusing on what I think is the crux. So far as making drastic changes to the law due to an annual handful of bizarre and horrific events, I'm not into that. SoD should be a country of dudes who continue to drink their beer and flip the bird while being shot at, if not slinging insults at their assailants. <- Ideally, but that is a bit of exaggeration. But I think any nationalized healthcare plan aka public option, should maybe not right now, but every few years look at the idea of mandating people see a psychologist once every couple years. And if they're considered in a high risk category, or something. Basically the whole idea would be to treat mental illness a lot more like we do physical illness. But that said, there's a lot of problems with how we do the latter as well. Focusing on preventative care, treating illnesses not symptoms, and not relying on lifelong medication as the primary treatment options; things of that nature, would be a benefit to all, IMO. That said, if someone proposes studying any of these matters, they should be funded responsibly. And should someone come up with a solution that shows real potential, it should be tried. Whether it's public safety practices, or mental health regulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

#5. Fake News

 

Basically this one is a really dangerous situation to try and wrangle via state power. As I do believe quite strongly in free speech as well as free press. The very notion of 'the state' sort of deciding who is and who is not news, journalism, legitimate are all things to be avoided at all costs, basically. But I think it bears keeping in mind that the 'legitimate' fifth estate sort of brought this fake news revolution upon itself. Shilling out for big money, turning to 24/7 broadcasts that are constantly looking for a way to generate ad revenue and keep millions of people glued to the TV. I think some sort of transition away from advertising and news would probably be a good idea. I'm biased towards this however, comma space, as I think most forms of advertising are cancer and should be done away with. Marketing is probably moreso the root of all evil, than money itself, in a capitalistic society. I'll at least entertain that idea. I think legitimate news sites doing away with opinion pieces, grandstanding social and political issues by making value judgements on them, and sticking to objective factual reporting would be a step in the right direction. It's something Scott Adams has talked about at length, that Trump v. Media has sort of brought to the forefront the mainstream media's inability to simply report the news. They 'have to' make moral and ethical judgement on matters, because of how they've courted their audience. Likewise this panic coverage of things like healthcare risks, violence, and what have you; when we continue to live in a more and more peaceful world; disrupts and accurate view of the world. It's easy to cultivate a society of paranoid racists when all they see on the news or TV is blacks committing acts of violence. If you played nothing but episodes of Cops on syndicated TV, you would (and I don't think any economist or sociologist would disagree) see a rise in concern with regards to crime as well as anti-black racism. I've long argued that people on the whole are much more susceptible to non-factual argumentation and persuasion than the alternative. It furthermore ties to Trump, as he doesn't really engage in dialectic discussion, he's pure rhetoric. But so is the media, it's why they were so powerful for so long, but Trump has taken their weapons and used them to his own advantage. There has to be some larger effort to dismantle the power of rhetoric. It's no easy task, people are seemingly built to be indifferent to facts and logic, and vulnerable to emotional manipulation as well as your standard fair of confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, and other troubles with idiots.

 

"Most people would rather die than think and many of them do!" - Bertrand Russel, The ABC of Relativity

 

I will have to tap out on giving a legitimate answer for #5 as it's not something I've milled around in my head enough or long-enough to really grasp at some sort of real answer beyond what I've just given.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

IS THAT A 1911?!?!?!?!?!

 

:L.....

 

IS THAT THE SEXIEST THING IVE SEEN IN A DECADE?!?!?!?!

 

DESUDESUDESUDESUDDEAUDEUDSEUDSUEDESUDUSUDSUEDUSEDUSEUDEUDEUDUSEDUESUDUESDUESDUESUDESUDUESDUESUDESUDUSUDSUEDUSUDUSEDEDEDSUDUESDUESUDUSUDUSEUDUEDSUUDEUESU

Edited by Nescient
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

2015 the U.S. is, according to the Census

https://factfinder.c....xhtml?src=bkmk

 

62.3% White

17.1% Hispanic

12.6% Black

 

2016 the FBI: UCR reports

https://ucr.fbi.gov/...tables/table-21

 

However, comma space the UCR doesn't separate Whites and Hispanics, so for purposes of the UCR the US is 79.4% White and 12.6% Black.

 

Murder

White - 44.7%

Black - 52.6%

 

Rape

White - 67.6%

Black - 29.1%

 

Robbery

White - 43.4%

Black - 54.5%

 

Aggravated Assault

White - 62.8%

Black - 33.3%

 

Burglary

White - 68.4%

Black - 29.1%

 

Larceny

White - 69%

Black - 27.7%

 

Motor Vehicle Theft

White - 66%

Black - 30.7%

 

Arson

White - 72%

Black - 23.3%

 

Other Assaults

White - 65.2%

Black - 31.4%

 

Forgery and Counterfeiting

White - 65.5%

Black - 31.9%

 

Fraud

White - 67%

Black - 30.5%

 

Embezzlement

White - 61.4%

Black - 35.8%

 

Stolen Property

White - 64.2%

Black - 33.4%

 

Vandalism

White - 68.4%

Black - 28.1%

 

Weapons

White - 55.9%

Black - 41.8%

 

Prostitution

White - 55.5%

Black - 37.9%

 

Sex Offenses (except rape and prostitution)

White - 71.6%

Black - 24.7%

 

Drug Abuse Violations

White - 71%

Black - 26.7%

 

Gambling

White - 45%

Black - 48.4%

 

Offenses against family and children

White - 67.1%

Black - 29.1%

 

D.U.I.

White - 82.2%

Black - 13.6%

 

Liquor Laws

White - 79.2%

Black - 14.5%

 

Drunkenness

White - 76.5%

Black - 14.7%

 

Disorderly Conduct

White - 63.3%

Black - 32.2%

 

Vagrancy

White - 66%

Black - 30.7%

 

All other offenses (except traffic)

White - 69.2%

Black - 27.4%

 

Suspicion

White - 35%

Black - 30.7%

American Indian or Alaka Native - 32.5% <- outlier

 

Curfew and Loitering

White - 56.3%

Black - 40.7%

 

Throughout the entire list, there's only one instance of whites (which if you remember is actually whites + hispanics) being arrested above their demographic percentage, and that's for D.U.I.

 

Also there's not a single instance of blacks being arrested below their demographic percentage, of all things the closest one is D.U.I.

 

I wonder how many people chalk this up to the meme of "institutional racism".

 

The divergence in criminality becomes even larger when you understand the scope of how crime statistics don't readily make it available as to what % of the "White" offenders are Hispanic.

 

Bureau of Justice Statistics gets into it circa 2015, however -> https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p15.pdf

 

In 2014 "Sentenced prisoners under the jurisdiction of state of federal correctional authorities..." (2015 did not have complete data from Nevada and Oregon)

White - 506,600

Black - 539,500

Hispanic - 326,400

 

In 2014 "Imprisonment rate of sentenced prisoners under the jurisdiction of state or federal correctional authorities..." per 100,000 U.S. Residents

White - 317

Black - 1,824

Hispanic - 860

 

7BzDerq.png

 

pFX4iNt.png

 

In 2015 the U.S. had a homicide rate of 4.88% per 100,000 people.

 

Making us 126th in the world, according to Wikipedia.

 

If you knock the homicide rate down to just the "White" portion it becomes 2.18 per 100,000. (2.18136) Which would make the U.S. 75th on Wikipedia.

 

However, considering that there were ~46,000 white prison inmates serving time for murder in 2014 and ~43,700 hispanic prison inmates serving time for murder.

 

Let's just be conservative and knock it down an additional 40%, that would make the U.S. homicide rate 1.3 per 100,000.

 

That would make us 49th in the world, sat between Sweden with 1.15 and Israel with 1.36. (going next major country above and below, with 2015 statistics)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...