 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Philosophy Forum » If Bees Were Feminists...... |
|
Page 3 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Canuck57... |
 Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
klunk wrote:
[quote]"Saracene" <john.jsm at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e88bc58d-1458-481e-9c23-2462e8fc76e1 at (no spam) a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On 2 Nov, 12:29, Strabo <str... at (no spam) flashlight.net> wrote:
Moderator wrote:
Strabo wrote:
sarge wrote:
On 29 Okt, 12:41, Moderator <meldo... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
...there would be no flowers. (feminists claim beauty is
objectified)
I don't know where you got the idea that feminists don't like beauty.
And it is not beauty being objectified they see as the problem, it is
humans, women, being objectified that they object to.
The female IS the natural object of sexual reproduction. Denial is
a symptom of mental instability.
Feminism is distorted reality. It is a cry for help.
Very insightful Strabo. I had to think about the premise of "bees for
the flowers" for a while and I’m still not quite sure about it.
Clearly angiosperms came first but that in itself does not suggest
bees evolved to service flowers. In fact the premise that something
evolves to serve something else is a bit of a misnomer. More
accurately their design succeeded in fulfilling a niche as other
pollinating insects existed before bees. Something about bees were
different; possibly their communal nature being effective at finding
resources; a near perfect balance of central planning communal living
and harnessing the power of the individual.
As I see it plants provided a place for the various types of bees.
Termites and ants also live in coop colonies but I think preceded
the bee and have a different arrangement with plants.
I can’t argue about your insight about feminism. Its obviously an
aberration but we might think of it as a design experiment to fulfill
a niche. We might also remember that the vast majority of evolutionary
experiments are failures. The central planners and imaginative mal-
contents should remember that millions upon millions of years of
natural evolution has provided us with all the information we require
to make a well functioning society. I see these nut-bars as building a
house from the roof down. They envision the perfect roof then slap
together whatever shit they can find to support it. Its really an
insult to intelligence.
A few thoughts...
If the suggestion is that the behavior that we know as feminism is
an evolutionary experiment, I don't see it that way. From the standpoint
of history, human females have always antagonized the male and tried in
a half-hearted way to separate or create a third or super-sex. The
strong desire to nourish and the greater need for physical and emotional
security leaves the female at a distinct disadvantage outside the
domestic setting. She sort of goes crazy and if not brought back into
the fold tends to screw up society.
What we call feminism is a symptom of societal instability caused by
changes in sex roles. This brings about much confusion. What precisely
initiates this shift is probably a combination of factors involving
diet, activities and pheromones. At any rate it seems the more
'civilized' a society the more unstable it becomes.
Females and politics invariably leads to power imbalances which we call
these days, Socialism or Communism. She votes with her heart to help
what she needs to nourish and also votes for lots of security. The
national security state is an extension of the female persona -
busybody, gossipy, snooping, telling Daddy about the threats to her,
etc. Very dangerous.
From mother to daughter the message of alienation passes.
The hand that rocks the cradle whispers inanities to children who grow
up with a distorted sense of self. Sexual confusion and personality
disorders abound under feminist influence. Thus we see each succeeding
generation further removed from reality until finally the society
crashes.
The new threat that faces humanity is the power to modify its own
genome, something the social insects discovered many millions of years
ago.
"designer babies"... you bet... sci fi is rife with horror visions of
this... gattaca was a good flick on this topic... although the only downside
it covered was some of the social implications of "successful" genetic
modification and not the inevitable "physical failures" which would mount
while achieving that sort of tinkering with the species...
super babies for the rich and a subservient, "normal" underclass for
everyone else while the "defectives" get tossed into the incinerator...
...and let's not forget cloning... immortality for the rich and powerful
while everyone else gets to be disposed of when they've outlived their
usefulness...
or "organ farms" like on the island where humans are grown for the purposes
of creating spare body parts for when needed...
ya... I'd say we're getting long past the time when we shed some of these
petty, neanderthalic attitudes toward issues we should have outgrown by now
and start considering how to address issues with far greater reach in their
implications...
for all the griping over such things as stem cell research, we've barely
begun to scratch the surface of issues people are going to be squabbling
over in the not so distant future.... the religious fundies are going to
have one helluva lot to come to terms with if they're still going to insist
on being fixated on relatively superficial issues such as the right to
choose to abort a pregnancy... if their heads are spinning now over
embryonic stem cells, then they'll just twist them right off in another
generation or two....
[/quote]
Pretty good chance the governemtn will raise people like sheep in due
time. Look at Canada's population demographics. Don't have enough
money to raise children, hopeless in debt. 1/4 of the children born
into poor and welfare or the parents are still children themselves. The
people who can afford them don't have the time to raise and mentor thier
children.
Intrinsic population growth is so negative we open up the flood gates
and quite litterally pay them money to relocate here! Subtact out first
generation immigrants, and our population is shrinking big time.
Imploding actually.
The future isn't bright, we haven't socially evolved much in 5000+
years. Our ease and freedoms are due to technology, not sociology.
Sooner or later we will be like bees or ants, the test tube generation
raised by the government to be good little low maintenace sheep. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| klunk... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:10 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Canuck57" <Canuck57 at (no spam) nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%bLHm.30$XH1.22 at (no spam) newsfe22.iad...
[quote]klunk wrote:
"Saracene" <john.jsm at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e88bc58d-1458-481e-9c23-2462e8fc76e1 at (no spam) a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On 2 Nov, 12:29, Strabo <str... at (no spam) flashlight.net> wrote:
Moderator wrote:
Strabo wrote:
sarge wrote:
On 29 Okt, 12:41, Moderator <meldo... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
...there would be no flowers. (feminists claim beauty is
objectified)
I don't know where you got the idea that feminists don't like
beauty.
And it is not beauty being objectified they see as the problem, it
is
humans, women, being objectified that they object to.
The female IS the natural object of sexual reproduction. Denial is
a symptom of mental instability.
Feminism is distorted reality. It is a cry for help.
Very insightful Strabo. I had to think about the premise of "bees for
the flowers" for a while and I’m still not quite sure about it.
Clearly angiosperms came first but that in itself does not suggest
bees evolved to service flowers. In fact the premise that something
evolves to serve something else is a bit of a misnomer. More
accurately their design succeeded in fulfilling a niche as other
pollinating insects existed before bees. Something about bees were
different; possibly their communal nature being effective at finding
resources; a near perfect balance of central planning communal living
and harnessing the power of the individual.
As I see it plants provided a place for the various types of bees.
Termites and ants also live in coop colonies but I think preceded
the bee and have a different arrangement with plants.
I can’t argue about your insight about feminism. Its obviously an
aberration but we might think of it as a design experiment to fulfill
a niche. We might also remember that the vast majority of evolutionary
experiments are failures. The central planners and imaginative mal-
contents should remember that millions upon millions of years of
natural evolution has provided us with all the information we require
to make a well functioning society. I see these nut-bars as building a
house from the roof down. They envision the perfect roof then slap
together whatever shit they can find to support it. Its really an
insult to intelligence.
A few thoughts...
If the suggestion is that the behavior that we know as feminism is
an evolutionary experiment, I don't see it that way. From the
standpoint
of history, human females have always antagonized the male and tried in
a half-hearted way to separate or create a third or super-sex. The
strong desire to nourish and the greater need for physical and
emotional
security leaves the female at a distinct disadvantage outside the
domestic setting. She sort of goes crazy and if not brought back into
the fold tends to screw up society.
What we call feminism is a symptom of societal instability caused by
changes in sex roles. This brings about much confusion. What precisely
initiates this shift is probably a combination of factors involving
diet, activities and pheromones. At any rate it seems the more
'civilized' a society the more unstable it becomes.
Females and politics invariably leads to power imbalances which we call
these days, Socialism or Communism. She votes with her heart to help
what she needs to nourish and also votes for lots of security. The
national security state is an extension of the female persona -
busybody, gossipy, snooping, telling Daddy about the threats to her,
etc. Very dangerous.
From mother to daughter the message of alienation passes.
The hand that rocks the cradle whispers inanities to children who grow
up with a distorted sense of self. Sexual confusion and personality
disorders abound under feminist influence. Thus we see each succeeding
generation further removed from reality until finally the society
crashes.
The new threat that faces humanity is the power to modify its own
genome, something the social insects discovered many millions of years
ago.
"designer babies"... you bet... sci fi is rife with horror visions of
this... gattaca was a good flick on this topic... although the only
downside it covered was some of the social implications of "successful"
genetic modification and not the inevitable "physical failures" which
would mount while achieving that sort of tinkering with the species...
super babies for the rich and a subservient, "normal" underclass for
everyone else while the "defectives" get tossed into the incinerator...
...and let's not forget cloning... immortality for the rich and powerful
while everyone else gets to be disposed of when they've outlived their
usefulness...
or "organ farms" like on the island where humans are grown for the
purposes of creating spare body parts for when needed...
ya... I'd say we're getting long past the time when we shed some of these
petty, neanderthalic attitudes toward issues we should have outgrown by
now and start considering how to address issues with far greater reach in
their implications...
for all the griping over such things as stem cell research, we've barely
begun to scratch the surface of issues people are going to be squabbling
over in the not so distant future.... the religious fundies are going to
have one helluva lot to come to terms with if they're still going to
insist on being fixated on relatively superficial issues such as the
right to choose to abort a pregnancy... if their heads are spinning now
over embryonic stem cells, then they'll just twist them right off in
another generation or two....
Pretty good chance the governemtn will raise people like sheep in due
time. Look at Canada's population demographics. Don't have enough money
to raise children, hopeless in debt. 1/4 of the children born into poor
and welfare or the parents are still children themselves. The people who
can afford them don't have the time to raise and mentor thier children.
Intrinsic population growth is so negative we open up the flood gates and
quite litterally pay them money to relocate here! Subtact out first
generation immigrants, and our population is shrinking big time. Imploding
actually.
The future isn't bright, we haven't socially evolved much in 5000+ years.
Our ease and freedoms are due to technology, not sociology.
[/quote]
technology changes sociology in rather dramatic ways...
[quote]Sooner or later we will be like bees or ants, the test tube generation
raised by the government to be good little low maintenace sheep.
[/quote]
all the more reason for you to support "socialist" programs like
education....  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Moderator... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 9:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Strabo wrote:
[quote]Moderator wrote:
Strabo wrote:
sarge wrote:
On 29 Okt, 12:41, Moderator <meldo... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
...there would be no flowers. (feminists claim beauty is objectified)
I don't know where you got the idea that feminists don't like beauty.
And it is not beauty being objectified they see as the problem, it is
humans, women, being objectified that they object to.
The female IS the natural object of sexual reproduction. Denial is
a symptom of mental instability.
Feminism is distorted reality. It is a cry for help.
Very insightful Strabo. I had to think about the premise of "bees for
the flowers" for a while and I�m still not quite sure about it.
Clearly angiosperms came first but that in itself does not suggest
bees evolved to service flowers. In fact the premise that something
evolves to serve something else is a bit of a misnomer. More
accurately their design succeeded in fulfilling a niche as other
pollinating insects existed before bees. Something about bees were
different; possibly their communal nature being effective at finding
resources; a near perfect balance of central planning communal living
and harnessing the power of the individual.
As I see it plants provided a place for the various types of bees.
Termites and ants also live in coop colonies but I think preceded
the bee and have a different arrangement with plants.
I can�t argue about your insight about feminism. Its obviously an
aberration but we might think of it as a design experiment to fulfill
a niche. We might also remember that the vast majority of evolutionary
experiments are failures. The central planners and imaginative mal-
contents should remember that millions upon millions of years of
natural evolution has provided us with all the information we require
to make a well functioning society. I see these nut-bars as building a
house from the roof down. They envision the perfect roof then slap
together whatever shit they can find to support it. Its really an
insult to intelligence.
A few thoughts...
If the suggestion is that the behavior that we know as feminism is
an evolutionary experiment, I don't see it that way.
[/quote]
I don't mean to imply it was biological evolution only that a parallel
or understanding might be drawn from comparing societal evolution to
biological evolution. The premise being feminism (societal) and bees
(biological).
[quote]From the standpoint
of history, human females have always antagonized the male and tried in
a half-hearted way to separate or create a third or super-sex. The
strong desire to nourish and the greater need for physical and emotional
security leaves the female at a distinct disadvantage outside the
domestic setting. She sort of goes crazy and if not brought back into
the fold tends to screw up society.
What we call feminism is a symptom of societal instability caused by
changes in sex roles.
[/quote]
I would assert societal instability is caused by changes in sex roles.
Another example of what I percieve as an experiment in societal
evolution.
[quote]This brings about much confusion. What precisely
initiates this shift is probably a combination of factors involving
diet, activities and pheromones. At any rate it seems the more
'civilized' a society the more unstable it becomes.
Females and politics invariably leads to power imbalances which we call
these days, Socialism or Communism. She votes with her heart to help
what she needs to nourish and also votes for lots of security. The
national security state is an extension of the female persona -
busybody, gossipy, snooping, telling Daddy about the threats to her,
etc. Very dangerous.
From mother to daughter the message of alienation passes.
The hand that rocks the cradle whispers inanities to children who grow
up with a distorted sense of self. Sexual confusion and personality
disorders abound under feminist influence. Thus we see each succeeding
generation further removed from reality until finally the society
crashes.
[/quote]
I can't argue against those points. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Strabo... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Canuck57 wrote:
[quote]Strabo wrote:
If the suggestion is that the behavior that we know as feminism is
an evolutionary experiment, I don't see it that way. From the standpoint
of history, human females have always antagonized the male and tried in
a half-hearted way to separate or create a third or super-sex. The
strong desire to nourish and the greater need for physical and emotional
security leaves the female at a distinct disadvantage outside the
domestic setting. She sort of goes crazy and if not brought back into
the fold tends to screw up society.
What we call feminism is a symptom of societal instability caused by
changes in sex roles. This brings about much confusion. What precisely
initiates this shift is probably a combination of factors involving
diet, activities and pheromones. At any rate it seems the more
'civilized' a society the more unstable it becomes.
Females and politics invariably leads to power imbalances which we call
these days, Socialism or Communism. She votes with her heart to help
what she needs to nourish and also votes for lots of security. The
national security state is an extension of the female persona -
busybody, gossipy, snooping, telling Daddy about the threats to her,
etc. Very dangerous.
From mother to daughter the message of alienation passes.
The hand that rocks the cradle whispers inanities to children who grow
up with a distorted sense of self. Sexual confusion and personality
disorders abound under feminist influence. Thus we see each succeeding
generation further removed from reality until finally the society
crashes.
Modern day society. Simply put marriage is on it's way out. Lets face
it, why get married? About the only reason I can think of is you have
lost your marbles. Divorce and the letdown when the 50% chance it will
fail materializes. For marriage to work, you need a mutual motivator
and attraction.
[/quote]
Find the right woman and live away from cities.
[quote]
Today men don't need women to feather the nest so when they get home
things are just right.
Women don't need to keep their working man healthy to put food on the
table.
The main necessity reasons to get married have vanished in modern
society. Modern society is more like ants in city-hills. In fact
someday we will manufacture children just like bees and ants do larvae.
[/quote]
No, "we" won't. Some entity somewhere might but it won't be your
experience.
[quote]
Amazes me, seeing young men sound like women and women who walk like
line backers. The division is smearing and in a few hundred years the
divion will become permanent.
[/quote]
Men who sound like women but are not. Women who try to walk like
line-backers but cannot. Pseudo role reversals are psychological games.
Feminism, homosexuality and transgendism are compulsive disorders.
The truth is that the division of sexes is as permanent as the species.
Abridge the fundamental distinctions between the sexes and the species
is no more.
[quote]
Think, 500 years from now you will order your children via a government
web site.
[/quote]
Not a chance. There are three reasons.
1. The essence of Nature is in its capacity for change.
2. The more complex the system the greater the potential for failure.
3. Homo sapien is the epitome of species specific behavior and
characteristics.
The more society becomes more dependent on technology, the more
vulnerable it becomes to change and the less it is able to adapt
to change. Man creates the means for his demise.
Each age, each uptick in discovery and application of resources,
is built upon the successes of previous ages. The digital age
will pass as have all others.
At this time western civilization is one catastrophe away from
dissolution. This breakdown may come from an asteroid strike or an
electromagnetic pulse, a mass economic collapse or an artificially
recombined virus, etc.
Reality check: Speculation is interesting but no one will live a future
other than their own. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Strabo... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 11:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
whitebread wrote:
[quote]"Strabo" <strabo at (no spam) flashlight.net> wrote in message news:Ms0Hm.482$%U3.230 at (no spam) newsfe21.iad...
Bees exist to service plants.
The "Queen" is an engorged mass of quivering protoplasm, immobile,
defenseless and totally dependent on genetic slaves. The "Queen"
is an egg-laying machine.
Feminists are a perversion. Feminists exist to warn men that
their women have lost a sense of purpose; that without intervention by
strong males, tyranny is just around the corner.
Did the scapel slip during your circumcision?
[/quote]
Sorry, I'm not available. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:41 am
|
|