maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:58 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 224 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: ANTIFA - Unreasonable?
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:08 am 
Offline
His Most Gracious Majesty, Commie of the Year
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:44 pm
Posts: 7394
Reputation points: 15171
Anthropoid wrote:
Just a technical comment: A great deal of what is referred to as "pedophilia" is in fact "ephebophilia."

In Western legal contexts, and I believe in international legal contexts the concepts are linked to the inability for "non-adults" to consent. Legal definitions of the "age of consent" are essentially arbitrary values that reflect the gut-instinct and/or local traditions of the jurisdiction where they are instituted. The value ranges from 11 years of age (Nigeria) to 21 years of age (Bahrain) globally, and can vary by up to 2 years across any two Unites States state borders (youngest 16, oldest 18).

With the exception of the highest values instituted by law (which are still probably too low) these statutes almost universally err on the side of placing young people in danger of harm. I say this from the standpoint of ~25 years of research and teaching in anthropology which leads me to the conclusion: most 25 year old humans do not in fact have sufficient maturity to be capable of consent in the strict sense of fully comprehending and rationally appraising the costs and benefits of any specific intimate act.

From my standpoint, any physical contact with a person under 30 is in fact questionable in terms of the "non-consensual" concepts which legal frameworks invoke in the construction of "age of consent" statutes. 25 years of age is probably reasonable safe, but 18 year olds are almost universally "children" from any objective scientific standpoint, and of course 16 year olds (the age of consent in Georgia where I live for example) are on average even more vulnerable.

Any other perspective on these matters is likely hypocritical, ignorant and fallacious: one can actually scientifically assess the behavioral characteristics underlying the statutes, i.e., psychological capacity for consent, or you can run with the ridiculous bureaucratic double-talk in which the same person standing on one side of a state border is (at age 16) "able to consent" and thus "legal," but is 1 meter away on the other side of the border "not yet old enough to consent" and thus "illegal."

The moralizing and hyperbole surrounding this topic by droves of pundits, circus clowns, witch hunters, legislators, career opportunists, moralists, and sanctimonious twats makes me want to vomit. It harkens to the Salem Witch Hunt . . . but yeah . . . ANTIFA and NAMBLA and any organization that advocates for even further irrational license to molest those under the age of 30 are especially execrable.


On the other hand, once you're starting to get past that 25yo mark then the total number of children you're ever going to have starts to drop like a rock.

Further, the eggs that are are ones that you start out with. You don't get new ones and they keep aging. In fact the increased risks and drop in fertility towards and beyond 40 is because, ~40 years is a fuck long time for an egg to wait unused.

We need more people, we need for the good folks to actually have children. A lot of societies seem to aim towards reaching a steady decline into extinction where procrastination, hedonism and unending quest for "happiness" put having children on indefinite hold and where not having children by choice is trumpeted as "a positive choice". Not that everyone is indeed equipped to have children but it says something of a civilization that is so hedonistic and vane that it is willing to go extinct for the sake of "pursuing happiness and self-fulfillment".

_________________
All scientists across the world work for US Democratic Party


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANTIFA - Unreasonable?
PostPosted: Wed Nov 08, 2017 6:01 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 9530
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 10688
Oh absolutely. Peak fertility (which is probably strongly correlated with peak irrationality) is between 19 and 30 (possibly only 25) depending on various things.

Average age of menarche (the onset of fertility for females) is around age 12 in the U.S.

Couple years back I was sifting through documents and came upon my mother's birth certificate. Born 1936. Her, mother AJ Jenkins, date of birth 1923.

So I am a descendant of a "pedophile" I guess! I reckon most of us are!

_________________
Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANTIFA - Unreasonable?
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 6:19 am 
Offline
His Most Gracious Majesty, Commie of the Year
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:44 pm
Posts: 7394
Reputation points: 15171
Anthropoid wrote:
Oh absolutely. Peak fertility (which is probably strongly correlated with peak irrationality) is between 19 and 30 (possibly only 25) depending on various things.

Average age of menarche (the onset of fertility for females) is around age 12 in the U.S.

Couple years back I was sifting through documents and came upon my mother's birth certificate. Born 1936. Her, mother AJ Jenkins, date of birth 1923.

So I am a descendant of a "pedophile" I guess! I reckon most of us are!


Why do you suppose modern 30-year olds are so incredibly immature in the West?

Could it be the rotten culture, a vane civilization that pampers them to death and cushions them against all the realities of life?

Civilization that preaches individuality and hedonism, where teachers at schools tell children they should avoid marriage, postpone having children and "play the field". I've had female teachers warn the girls at school with those exact words.

You study this stuff, some ago a 30-year old would be a high ranking 'middle-aged' top member of his or her tribe. There was no room for being soft, indecisive or immature. People had to grow the fuck up or they would die, their tribe would die.

Somewhere along the way we came up with a civilization that apologizes for it's own existence, says that if you ever feel weird it must be because you're gay/lesbian/transgender or whatever, that you need to see shrinks, complain and be a victim instead of sucking it up and growing the hell up. All the traits that lead to stern character that can plow his way through life are being condemned and fought against.

Seriously, there's nothing stopping people maturing by the age they're 20.

I know we have a good system that does part of the trick - it doesn't do it all on it's own and doesn't impact everyone, but national military service is a great thing to have. There are so many folks that by they're 20 have never had to take anything serious in this civilization. Suddenly they have responsibility, suddenly they have to do what they're told to do and suck it up. Suddenly there's no mommy to say "oh, it's fine sugarboo, the shopkeeper shouldn't have yelled at you for not paying, I know you didn't mean anything and I'll make him apologize to you".

We have all these institutions now - by the age kids are 20 they do nothing serious, instead we've built this whole college/university institution which is all about not taking responsibility, partying, fooling around, doing drugs - in fact I wouldn't be surprised if a college ad actually read "Come to Virginia College, lose your virginity while doing drugs! This is the time!"

"Don't worry, just take some loan, it's not like you're ever going to have to pay it back or anything, it's free money you can spend on bars and drugs!"


Just the notion of going to school without any life experience is often backwards. In a lot of cases it would do good for these people to first go have a job, perhaps as runners and assistants to the people in their future field - and then after, say, 5 years when they enter the education system to graduate for next level position they can see the how the theory is tied to practical issues in their field and so.

But no, instead we build a sense of entitlement, victimization and superiority to the kids while ensuring they remain as immature as possible for as long as possible.


Since when did having a kid or two stop you from being able to study anyway? I know a whole bunch of people, heck, I wrote my extensive grad papers with two kids screaming in the background - I did it in one solid month from the start, almost everyone else took up to over a year to finish far less ambitious papers.

_________________
All scientists across the world work for US Democratic Party


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANTIFA - Unreasonable?
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:06 pm 
Offline
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 9530
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 10688
Complicated questions, many careers worth of research.

My gut intuition is: the understandable and reasonable desire to dilate childhood and make it as safe as possible.

Skimmed through a book some years ago whose title I cannot recall, something like "The Invention of Childhood." It basically looked at the evolution of the concept of adulthood in a small segment of Western civilizations going back to the middle ages. Basic point was: the contemporary concept of "childhood" is largely a recent invention. The farther back in time one goes the more one finds a view that younger years of life equates with less capacity, whereas the view today is that, any age below age = x equates with complete incapacity.

Even as recently as the 1940s, 10 or 12 was considered old enough to work, though the legal efforts to restrict such things were increasingly penetrating through the society. You can still see this ethos to some extent, even as close as Caribbean islands. I have done a couple years of fieldwork in rural Dominica. I can remember the first time I saw 7 or 8 year old working: chopping wood, chopping copra or coconuts with a machete, weeding with a machete, toting water, cooking over a fire, etc. My eyes kind of bugged out and of course, like any modern American, my first thought was "Oh My God! That is SO DANGEROUS! and so irresponsible! Who is letting that child wave that knife/ax/machete/pithfork around like that!

_________________
Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANTIFA - Unreasonable?
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:19 pm 
Offline
Staff Sergeant

Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 4:26 pm
Posts: 3544
Location: not the end of the world but you can see it from here
Reputation points: 7610
Just make a visit to most farms and you'll still find 10 year olds doing their share of the labor if not ones even younger.

_________________
Texas, where we have the death penalty and aren't afraid to use it! Cruz 2020!!


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANTIFA - Unreasonable?
PostPosted: Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:33 pm 
Offline
Hair in the soap
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:46 am
Posts: 17720
Reputation points: 14634
nelmsm wrote:
Just make a visit to most farms and you'll still find 10 year olds doing their share of the labor if not ones even younger.


This.

Hell, I was put to work pouring concrete in the summer for my father's small crew (mostly curb & gutter) ,and all the heavy labor that entailed, starting when I was ten up to around 16 or 17. In 95 - 105 F summer heat most of the time. Repeated day-long sunburns making the lily white skin on my arms literally blister up all over. Hauling all those big ass steel forms about put some extra muscle on me, for sure. Some farm work, too, but it wasn't such long stretches.

Other jobs seemed like a cakewalk after that. ;)

_________________
..
.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANTIFA - Unreasonable?
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 11:51 am 
Offline
His Most Gracious Majesty, Commie of the Year
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 12:44 pm
Posts: 7394
Reputation points: 15171
Anthropoid wrote:
Complicated questions, many careers worth of research.

My gut intuition is: the understandable and reasonable desire to dilate childhood and make it as safe as possible.


This is exactly where it goes wrong.

The goal is not to make childhood as safe as possible. The goal is to ensure that the kids survive without permanent injuries while gaining maximum potential and capacity once they leave the nest.

In Finland it is common to give knives, axes and such to small children - while they're not often put to work, they will play around pretending work, building tree houses, creating stuff with real tools.

7 and 8 year olds trying to boost their RC cars so they would run faster, sure, the engines could fry and the things could catch fire but that didn't make it any less fun. Roaming the woods. Shit, I would roam ~2 hours walk from home, easily, I'd know the entire woods for ~3-4 hour radius around my home like my own pockets.


The goal is to push and challenge kids. Take them camping, make stuff hard and difficult. Force them to do things until they are old enough to have internal motivation. Deny them things too and moderate - but mostly on the hedonistic side, teach them to deal with disappointments and even injustice.

"Nallekarkit ei aina mene tasan" - not everyone gets the same amount of gummy bears (candy) everytime.

No edge of the corner cushions. Children have to fucking learn not to walk into sharp furniture, to teach them that it's OK to bump into things is idiotic pampering.


The whole point of being a parent is to make sure that when you die off your kid is going to not just be able to take care of oneself - but to be able to do so better than you did with better prospects in life.

I know I'd hate living in the US, we were just talking about the PTA moms and all that bullshit. We have a couple of moms here who tried to organize that kind of stuff and we had immediately like 15 different parents stand up and go "hey, we have nothing against your desire to bake cakes and all but we are not going to take any part in selling stuff, the kids need cash for field trip you let us know how much and we'll pay."

nelmsm wrote:
Just make a visit to most farms and you'll still find 10 year olds doing their share of the labor if not ones even younger.


Once I was old enough, if I wanted some stuff I had to spend time doing what I could. For example picking up strawberries from a thorny field. It wasn't fun, it didn't pay well because the crops were bad, the field was hardly maintained in any way and the thorns didn't make it any more pleasant.

But that was what you had to do to buy stuff. Later when I managed to get to work in a warehouse in UK it felt like being in heaven - the job was so easy and the pay seemed completely out of proportion, I was able to buy a computer and more.

In the past years I've been accused of white privilege. Apparently I should be apologizing people for making a lot of money in software because I apparently got everything handed down to me with a silver spoon.

I think I was lucky. My parents were serious alcoholics, they never spent a dime on us. It wasn't too bad, they mostly just ignored us. This meant that we had to grow up, learn to earn some money and move out as soon as possible. I learnt that parents did not exist to act as a safety net for me and to help me get jobs, help me get to schools and help me finance my life. I learnt that if I wanted something I needed to make a plan and work through the plan. Others had it easier, they partied and bought stuff they couldn't afford.

Now they're at PTA meetings talking about how selling toilet paper is making kids entrepreneurial. That's not entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is not about selling toilet paper for 1€ margin. Entrepreneurship is about becoming a better person, building self discipline, setting goals and making plans - doing research and finding where you can personally create the most value.

The kids will work for sure. But not on some stupid PTA bullshit that makes zero sense commercially or otherwise just because some soccer moms want to feel important.

_________________
All scientists across the world work for US Democratic Party


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANTIFA - Unreasonable?
PostPosted: Sat Nov 11, 2017 11:53 am 
Offline
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 9530
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 10688
NefariousKoel wrote:
nelmsm wrote:
Just make a visit to most farms and you'll still find 10 year olds doing their share of the labor if not ones even younger.


This.

Hell, I was put to work pouring concrete in the summer for my father's small crew (mostly curb & gutter) ,and all the heavy labor that entailed, starting when I was ten up to around 16 or 17. In 95 - 105 F summer heat most of the time. Repeated day-long sunburns making the lily white skin on my arms literally blister up all over. Hauling all those big ass steel forms about put some extra muscle on me, for sure. Some farm work, too, but it wasn't such long stretches.

Other jobs seemed like a cakewalk after that. ;)


Me too.

Thing is, this would (these days) probably be liable to prosecution! :mrgreen:

_________________
Nero: So what is your challenge?

Anthro: Answer question #2: How do "Climate Change models" mathematically control for the natural forces which caused the Ice Age(s) to come and go . . . repeatedly?


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANTIFA - Unreasonable?
PostPosted: Sun Dec 03, 2017 2:29 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 26968
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 16223
Good news folks!

‘Antifa’ Gear No Longer Available on Walmart Website

:roll:


FFS, don't they bother checking what they sell?

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: ANTIFA - Unreasonable?
PostPosted: Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:33 pm 
Offline
Gunnery Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 3:16 am
Posts: 5262
Location: The Cockney Paradise
Reputation points: 12839
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center Antifa is not a hate group. Ok then. Nothing hateful about stoving in some guys head with a bikelock or wishing cops dead. :roll:

Quote:
You can find conservative policy centers like the Family Research Council on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “hate map,” but not the violent left-wing extremist group antifa.

Why not? Antifa’s radical activists are known for beating up those they view as “fascists,” but according to SPLC president Richard Cohen, antifa doesn’t actually espouse hate.

“If you are familiar with our work, we write about antifa often,” Mr. Cohen said in his Thursday testimony before the House Homeland Security Committee. “We condemn their tactics — I’ve said so publicly and we do so always — but antifa is not a group that vilifies people on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion and the like.”

Mr. Cohen came to testify on domestic terrorism but wound up tangling with House Republicans over the SLPC’s extensive offshore financial holdings, its relationship with Google in creating a “hate news index,” and the politics behind its “hate map.”

Rep. Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Republican, blasted the SPLC for failing to include antifa, saying it “reduces your credibility,” and accused the group of picking and choosing its targets based not on empirical data but “only your opinion.”

“So you’re okay with antifa as long as they don’t say things that you don’t agree with, but it’s okay if they hit people on the head with a bike lock or set things on fire or riot and flout the law by wearing face masks and incite riots—you’re okay with that?” asked Mr. Perry.

Said Mr. Cohen: “We condemn groups like antifa, we write about them often. We don’t list them as hate groups.”

As for the FRC, which spars with its ideological foes verbally but not physically, Mr. Cohen said it was listed because it “relentlessly vilifies” the LGBT community.

“Our listing of hate groups doesn’t necessarily mean that they engage in violence, although we think that the anti-LGBT propaganda is one of the factors that makes the LGBT community in our country the most likely to be victimized by hate crimes,” he said.

The SPLC has been widely condemned on the right as a left-wing attack machine, but Mr. Cohen said that among the 917 groups on the “hate map” are leftist organizations like the New Black Panther Party and the Nation of Islam.

Mr. Perry asked him why the map doesn’t list Students for Justice in Palestine, saying it has advocated for violence against Jews.

“I don’t know about that particular group,” Mr. Cohen said, adding, “We try to call hate as we see it. We limit our list not by left versus right but by groups that vilify others for factors such as race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion or the like.”

Despite the criticism, the SPLC has seen its stock rise in the aftermath of the August white-supremacist rally in Charlottesville Virginia, which resulted in three deaths, collecting millions from Hollywood and Silicon Valley donors and partnering with Google and ProPublica to create a database of “hate incidents.”

Mr. Cohen said he has urged Google to do more by modifying its search engine to downplay “hate groups.”

“What we try to get Google to do is not prioritize hate groups,” said Mr. Cohen.

He cited the example of mass murderer Dylann Roof, who found racist websites when he searched “black on white crime,” and later shot and killed nine black parishioners in the 2015 church massacre in Charleston, South Carolina.

“So we’re trying to say to Google, your algorithm is flawed or easily manipulated,” Mr. Cohen said.

While he cited the influence of racist websites in motivating Roof, Mr. Cohen denied any responsibility for the 2012 attack on the Family Research Council, in which Floyd Lee Corkins shot and wounded a security guard after being inspired by anti-FRC posts on the SPLC website.

“We’re no more responsible for what Mr. Corkins did based on reading our website than Martin Scorsese is for what John Hinckley did,” Mr. Cohen said, referring to the 1976 movie “Taxi Driver,” which inspired Hinckley to make an attempt on President Ronald Reagan’s life.

Mr. Perry asked how the SPLC could disavow blame for Corkins while holding others culpable for Roof, calling the discrepancy a “breathtaking double standard.”

Rep. Clay Higgins, Louisiana Republican, questioned Mr. Cohen over why the SPLC would need to deposit millions in offshore accounts, given its status as a non-profit, tax-exempt entity.

The SPLC has invested nearly 20 percent, or $69 million, of its $320 million endowment in offshore equity funds and other investments, according to its 2016 annual report.

“I think there’s been some confusion in the press about this,” Mr. Cohen said. “It’s common for nonprofit organizations including universities and big foundations to have money in offshore accounts. It avoids two things: certain kinds of filings and unrelated business income tax.”

He testified that President Trump’s campaign “energized the white supremacist movement,” and that the number of registered users on the white-supremacist website Stormfront more than doubled from 140,000 in 2008 to 330,000 in 2017.

Rep. Thomas Garrett, Virginia Republican, pointed out that most of the growth took place during the Obama administration, as did a sharp uptick in the number of black-separatist groups on the SPLC’s “hatewatch” list.

“Again, this isn’t President Obama’s fault. It’s not, is it? I mean, I don’t think it is,” Mr. Garrett said, adding, “If someone were to say that the prevalence of these groups is because of the rhetoric of one individual, that would be oversimplifying the problem, would it not?”

Replied Mr. Cohen: “Depending on the individual.”

Mr. Garrett noted that SPLC’s leaders donate almost exclusively to Democrats, and that the Alabama-based organization partners with liberal advocacy groups like Media Matters for America.

“I respect what you do. I’m concerned with how you’re doing it,” said Mr. Garrett.

He said it “troubles those to see an entity that has essentially been de facto made responsible for determining what is and isn’t hate that skews almost exclusively as do their collaborators in a particular direction.”

That the SPLC’s leadership tilts to the left should come as no surprise, said Mr. Cohen.

“The liberal tradition is an inclusive one,” said Mr. Cohen. “Hate is the opposite of that liberal tradition of inclusivity. So it’s not surprising to me that people at the SPLC, people at other inclusive organizations tend to give money to liberal organizations. It seems obvious to me.”

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... aw-center/

_________________
I could be the catalyst that sparks the revolution
I could be an inmate in a long-term institution
I could dream to wide extremes, I could do or die
I could yawn and be withdrawn and watch the world go by
What a waste...


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 224 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group