JAH - BOOTYLICIOUS. **BATTY POST.

Carter: Yeah, if your expectation is to lift that kind of weight, you will need a gorilla. In order to lift the highest weight a gorilla can lift, you will need a male gorilla. I'm not sure gorillas and lions are "very relevant" the way you think they are.

No, if I needed to lift that kind of weight I could simply increase the number of people or use a machine. When I ordered a pool table the delivery guy was like "covid" and left it on my sidewalk/driveway. It was over 320lbs. I am not a weak man and I almost got it in the house myself but ended up doing it with 3. When you use your brain and not just your brawn you don't need to be a gorilla to lift the same amount of weight a gorilla can lift. So no. You don't need a gorilla. Get my point yet?

"If the male somehow didn't exist the female would be at the highest levels because there would be no other to compare them to"
Carter:You REALLY want to exterminate all men, don't you? You suggest it pretty frequently.

LOL. playing devil's advocate is how I increase in wisdom. Trust me. I don't want to exterminate myself. But if you want to truly talk about women you have to be able to put yourself in their shoes. Otherwise, you're just another man telling them what YOU think they want and need.

"Evolution finds that the most efficient form of survival is NOT brute strength but a balance of strength, speed, agility, and most of all INTELLIGENCE."
Carter:You would argue women have the greater balance between these attributes, or a higher capacity for any of the above? I would argue the opposite.

I wasn't talking about women vs men. I was talking about humans vs other species. Men are more balanced towards logic and reason while women more towards creativity and compassion. However, that doesn't mean all women are the same, that all men are the same, that there aren't guys who get extremely emotional and act out of it, including violently. We don't just have testosterone. We also have estrogen. What makes us men and women is shared by both genders. It is only the amount that differs. You're treating women like they are a lesser species. I simply disagree with that. But if you think this you are more likely to find and end up with a woman who is less than a queen. If you want more you will keep looking until you are satisfied. I've had all types of women so I know that all types exist.

"A woman can shoot a 400lb gorilla just as easily as you can."
Carter:Wrong on every level. Women are smaller, more fragile, fearful, squeamish. You keep talking about being old, but everything inside you is resisting being an adult right now.

Speak for yourself and for your own woman. You cannot speak for every woman, nor for even the majority. A 400lb gorilla would strike fear in the hearts of the vast majority of men. That is because that gorilla could do the same amount of damage to a human male that it could do to a human female. You wouldn't fight a gorilla without a gun; male or female. Police officers often shoot black men claiming they were afraid for their lives. So let's not cloud the issue with fear. If a woman had to shoot to protect her children, afraid or not, she would shoot and could kill that gorilla the same as you. Are you not more fragile and fearful than a gorilla? Could it be because of your smaller size? Would you start a fight with Dwayne Johnson or Wesley Snipes? I doubt it.

"Without being forced to do so they would simply use their males to fight for them. THAT would be the SMARTER way to survive."
Carter: Not a good example. He risks his life for the woman because she passes on his line. That's called responsibility. Men have accountability attached to their privileges. I could give some ground on your point, women do use men a lot in our society, you could say it's smart. What does society say about men who use women? They're just smart?

But your argument was about survival, not responsibility or morality. If one species were to use another species to survive that may be morally ambiguous but not strategically ambiguous. When Europeans came to America they survived with the help of the natives. That was smart. But then they forced the Natives off their land and killed them. That was morally bankrupt. I have no problem if women use men because, like you said, we use them too. But what do we get out of having children that they don't? Do they not get the same benefit? And not only do you risk your body to protect them but for a long time men actually worked for women, working so that the woman could stay home whether she had children to take care of or not. With equality, they are actually giving up this benefit in favor of sharing the workload. There are problems with this, economically speaking, but the reality is that its easier to stay home and cook and clean but it is the act of working that trains mind and body to get stronger. So what you know of women is what you see when you allow them not to be challenged. ANYONE, male or female, who has a job that isn't mentally challenging is going to be at a mental disadvantage to someone who does. That is simply the nature of evolution. So don't misunderstand. I'm not saying women are superior. I'm simply saying that given different circumstances a woman is superior for a given task than a man who isn't as prepared for the task. But there are men who can cook better than women and there are women who can shoot better than men. You have to consider both nature and nurture and what's the best tool for the task at hand. You might thing 1 man with brute force is the best when in reality the same task can be accomplished with multiple people (any gender) balancing the load and strength required.

"So if a tribe of women needed to survive they could do so using their own strength and intellect."
Carter:I'm not really sure what your point is with this, if a male dominated tribe could just come along and enslave the lot of them if they really wanted. All your arguments rely on exterminating male influence or extrapolating "most" into "all". I have a hard time imagining women make it through the ice age on their own. Take down some mammoths?

That's the problem right there! If a male tribe has the mentality and lack of morality to enslave women then they would need to protect themselves from men. If you're saying they need men to protect themselves from men then who protects them from their male protectors? Can you take down a mammoth? Of course women could do it. Why do you keep thinking in terms of brawn? If you are up against a bigger/stronger opponent you shouldn't try to match their strength. You should out think them! If you are playing football you run different strategic plays in order to overcome your disadvantages. Same thing in the Art of War. Chinese men are typically smaller than us. Does that mean we would definitely win in a land war with China? Come on, man. You're smart.

"I already showed you that women are over 40% of the agricultural workers. So if a rich woman happened to be sexist and wanted women only she could do that."
Carter: Come back when they are 40% of garbage men, sewage workers, plumbers, construction and maintenance, mining, logging, etc... but don't hold your breath, 'cus women have absolutely no inclination to do that stuff. It's not their way.

Why would women want to be those things? I don't. I have ZERO desire to do any of those things. I like jobs where I get to use my mind and intelligence. There are different kinds of strength. That's what I'm trying to get you to see. What's better than mining is using your brain to come up with alternative methods to using humans to do it.

"Women are largely submissive out of being socialized by society to be so."
Carter: So in your view, testosterone and estrogen have minimal to no effect on aggressive impulses. There are legit studies on the subject, but I'm way too ADD to read those, and a lot of them involve animal testing, which isn't apples to apples.

I'm pretty sure from doping controversies that testosterone does add to aggression. But aggression is not a good thing to be out of control. Do this. Go to a mirror. Lift your shirt. See that you have nipples. Even though you have nipples that doesn't mean you can breast feed. So even though a woman isn't AS aggressive doesn't mean she should be submissive at all times. Are you aggressive at all times? Are gorillas aggressive at all times? No. One should be balanced. And when one has a partner one should take that partner's balance in consideration to form a duality that is beneficial to both and is balanced between the two.

Carter: On the other hand... why is it ok when you generalize women? If they want to be submissive, it's because they are brainwashed? So they need you to protect them from their dysfunctional instincts, right? Why do I feel like you're already part of the way to where I'm at?

No, I'm not generalizing women. I'm telling you that we don't get a full picture of their potential because our society is patriarchal. That patriarchal influence affects their development in ways I cannot fully comprehend or relate to. It's similar to how white supremacy affects black people in ways that whites cannot fully comprehend or relate to either. But because I know what its like to be on the receiving end of white supremacy and to have my people pigeon holed and characterized and devalued... I have 'some' idea of what it must be like for women; many of whom are raped, beaten, and/or molested.

Carter: I don't need a f'n pep talk on how anyone can follow their NBA dream if they work hard, you're an embarrassment. I could be a 1-legged midget for all you know. I have enough awareness to say I genetically have a high capacity for certain things and not others. Let alone, I'm NOT willing to work hard like NBA players. Why does that matter? Most women aren't willing to work hard enough to be CEOs. They just wanna complain there aren't more of them.

LOL. But there was a time when black people could only play in the "negro leagues". And while that was going on whites could still hang on to the notion that their white players were better than the black ones. Look it up. It's not a pep talk. People can do amazing things but it depends on your beliefs and motivation. This is why everyone can't be everything. Everyone can't be a top sales agent. Everyone can't be a CEO. Everyone can't be a model. Everyone can't be Idris Elba. What I'm talking about is the virtures of individualism and merit. You don't need to compare all women to the women you know just like no one needs to compare all black people to that black people you either know or see on TV.

On to authority. "Barack Obama was a good leader."
Carter: Obama admin increased government spying powers, took us from 2 wars to 7, did a coup on Gaddafi to prevent an African currency, tortured whistleblowers, didn't prosecute war crimes, separated families in cages, cracked down on protesters, instituted a Heritage Foundation healthcare plan instead of a public option, let a pipeline go through Native land, kept Guantanamo open, opened the arctic to drilling. I can go on and on. He was objectively terrible.

LOL... It would go too far off topic to address each of these points so I'll just disagree for now.

Carter: My concepts are well defined, so I have a pretty objective standard whether an authority is meeting its aim. Authority is there to remove dangers and create order. Functional is defined as that which promotes health and sustainability/harmony. If the authority is, itself, creating danger and disorder, causing harm and ruination, and that is the sum of its existence, how can you call it good? They are dysfunctional at best, and an illegitimate authority at worst.

So if men (generally speaking) have become a danger to women: rape them, molest them, beat them, leave them with the responsibility of raising their kids alone without financial support, how is this authority functional or legitimate? You could defend this by saying YOU have never done these things, but many men have. So just as you are not "many men" every woman is not "many women". So the same potential they have for needing your leadership because they can't survive without you is the same potential you have for being a terrible leader and man. It comes down to choice. It comes down to who you want to be and how hard you strive to become that. If you use, as a standard, those who don't strive you cannot say what's possible for those who do.

carter: I would say a good leader looks out for the best interests of ANYONE, regardless if they are under your authority or not. That was my objection to your definition. To state it in a wishy washy way, where responsibility ends where your group ends, is what I was objecting to. A good leader has to take care of more than just his own.

False. A good leader knows that the world outside is competitive. The US president is called the leader of the free world. That is only because they lead... the world. But if the US President says "America First" and acts like America only then what? He thinks this makes him a good leader because he doesn't realize the benefit to his own that comes from the greater leadership position. But he is immature and happens to be a moron. But a good leader can't take away from his own people to serve the interests of everyone else. It would be foolish for another country who isn't our ally to devalue their own currency so that other countries can buy more product than they can. You have to prioritize as a leader. When I work for a company I'm not trying to help our competitors. I'm trying to beat them. What sports team plays a game vs another team and tries to help everyone? Does that make sense to you?

If everyone was helping everyone you probably wouldn't need a leader at all.

Messenger: CarterBlunt

Sent: 7/8/2020 7:32:40 AM

I'm not saying they are a lesser species, just that they have a lower capacity for everything.

Just kidding. I can point out plenty of stuff women have a high capacity for. If I was here talking about that, you'd be like, "Yay! Girl power!"

"But there are men who can cook better than women"
Well yeah, men are the better cooks at the top level.

"But your argument was about survival, not responsibility or morality."
Survival is only valuable if you can justify the cost. If we can't, we may as well nuke this whole planet right now.

"LOL... It would go too far off topic to address each of these points so I'll just disagree for now."
We stopped talking about big badonkadonks a while ago.

"So if men (generally speaking) have become a danger to women: rape them, molest them, beat them"
Woah there, when I say "generally" I usually mean a greater majority, not a tiny percentage. I would say men, generally speaking, are angry when that happens and would find it difficult not to lynch the guy who was doing it. We obviously don't have good enough protections against that. I would argue we should screen for psychological defects and make those people wear some sort of identifiable patch, like a red balloon or a purple horseshoe, or maybe a yellow star.

"When I work for a company I'm not trying to help our competitors."
No one is saying help out your competitors, but if you send a hitman to kill them off, sure your company is well and healthy, but how would that be responsible leadership? This is the difference between capitalist thinking and actual business. Business provides value and charges fair compensation, capitalism takes as much as possible and gives as little as possible. Business stands on good reputation, capitalism hides shady reputation to scam as many people as possible, then move on to the next suckers. Nowhere is providing your customers a fair value anywhere in that statement. It's all "the company". That's not real business, and I could give a fuck about their example.

Or, you're a factory farmer, you give the livestock the bare minimum in food and shelter, so that's it, you've done your job. Their lives are a living hell, but at least you aren't responsible for them! Fucking evil. Makes me homicidal just thinking about the smugness of it.

Let's bring it down to a family level. If your son punches another kid, do you take responsibility? You admit he's under your authority. Are you at fault? The kid he punched isn't your family, though.

What if your neighbor's dog barks too much and annoys your family, so one day you break into their house and kill the dog. Now your family isn't annoyed anymore! However, your neighbor lost a cherished part of the family. How are you anything but oppressor and freak monster who needs to be trained with the most brutal Pavlovian-type techniques imaginable?

Messenger: IPXninja

Sent: 7/8/2020 4:50:10 PM

Just kidding. I can point out plenty of stuff women have a high capacity for. If I was here talking about that, you'd be like, "Yay! Girl power!"

I'm for girl power because women have been oppressed and marginalized. If things were different whenever we said "girl power" we would think we were talking about actual girls the same way black men used to be called "boy". It was disrespectful and demeaning but its still culturally okay to do this to women. But these things don't bother you. And maybe they've adapted so much that it doesn't bother many of them. But that's because they've been socialized to be the "weaker sex". It's like a religious doctrine that everyone believes and the women are made to believe it as well. As they break out of that belief and indoctrination women are only just beginning to reach for their full potential. So I don't judge them for their limited, restricted, and oppressed past. I judge them by their future potential.

side note: Have you seen A Handmaid's Tale? If so, what did you think? Whose side were you on?

"But there are men who can cook better than women"
Carter: Well yeah, men are the better cooks at the top level.

LOL. Trap sprung. Then by the logic that you have argued thus far, if men are the better cooks then shouldn't men be the ones doing most of the cooking in the home? I mean... you want THE BEST, right?

Carter: Survival is only valuable if you can justify the cost. If we can't, we may as well nuke this whole planet right now.

So just for the record, then you disagree with all wars and always side with the defender over the aggressor. Is this true?

"LOL... It would go too far off topic to address each of these points so I'll just disagree for now."
Carter:We stopped talking about big badonkadonks a while ago.

True, but that had exactly zero merit as an intellectual debate. So it was broadened to women because it original post made certain assumptions about women based on physical characteristics the author sadly had no experience with.

Carter: Woah there, when I say "generally" I usually mean a greater majority, not a tiny percentage. I would say men, generally speaking, are angry when that happens and would find it difficult not to lynch the guy who was doing it.

I like you, man. I don't agree with you on this thread but I like you. Sadly, I know too many women who have suffered these acts. Typically if a woman is with 3 or more guys the statistics catch up really fast. Either that or I'm a magnet for abused women, but I don't think so. Just about every woman I have been with has in the past either been raped (sometimes multiple times), molested, or physically abused. The reason that some women take a more submissive and passive posture is because of the trauma of these things and trying to avoid upsetting the man such that he uses his physicality against them rather than for them. Women are often attracted to thugs because they want a man who can and is willing to protect them from other men because they are afraid of men. That should not be so. But that is our reality. My heart hurts for those women and I have no respect for any man that would ever use his physical strength to harm a woman. I've had to restrain a female before but that's not the same.

Carter: No one is saying help out your competitors, but if you send a hitman to kill them off, sure your company is well and healthy, but how would that be responsible leadership?

That would be going out of your way to hurt the competition. I'm not talking about that. I'm just talking about not HELPING the competition. They have their own leadership who is responsible for taking care of their needs. Just like my best friend is a good leader for his family but doesn't lead mine and doesn't have to help mine. You're talking about capitalism but we don't practice pure capitalism and I'm not for pure capitalism. I personal preference is a mix of capitalism, communism, and socialism where certain things are shared, certain things are funded by the state, and certain things are driven by the free market. Balance. With checks and balances. We are taught that you can only do one and that is a lie.

Carter: Or, you're a factory farmer, you give the livestock the bare minimum in food and shelter, so that's it, you've done your job.

You're basically saying, if I understand, that leaders should be good moral human beings. I don't disagree. But I don't think you have to be good to your adversaries and opponents. Comparing them to helpless animals is different. And it is hard for me, as an omnivorous eater, to judge how animals are slaughtered. Just being honest. They are our food. We have teeth made for tearing flesh. A lion doesn't take a zebra out to dinner before it tackles it and rips its throat out with its teeth. I may sound like a contradiction in that sense, since I do consider myself to be a very moral and righteous person. However, we often make up the rules of such as we go along and the rules are relative and evolve to fit us as we evolve to fit the rules. I would love to go through life having never killed a man, but if a man threatens my family I would take my samurai katana of the mantle and do what I got to do.

Carter: Let's bring it down to a family level. If your son punches another kid, do you take responsibility? You admit he's under your authority. Are you at fault? The kid he punched isn't your family, though.

You didn't name the circumstances. Why did he punch the kid? If my son punches another kid I assume that kid deserved it and he was defending himself. I am not responsible for him punching another kid. I'm responsible for him acting reasonably, with discipline and honor. I would never tell any of my children that it is never okay to hit someone. But they know just from growing up around me that its not okay to be mean and to mistreat others. I am responsible for their development, their mental health, their physical health, their education. But I can only provide guidance and the lines in which to color. They are responsible for individual acts and decisions. That's why it is my responsibility to make them responsible and hold them accountable so that when they leave my house they are accountable to society.

Carter: What if your neighbor's dog barks too much and annoys your family, so one day you break into their house and kill the dog. Now your family isn't annoyed anymore! However, your neighbor lost a cherished part of the family. How are you anything but oppressor and freak monster who needs to be trained with the most brutal Pavlovian-type techniques imaginable?

I bought a dog silencer. It emits an ultrasonic sound that only dogs can hear. It is on my deck and chances are my neighbor doesn't even know I have it. Again, you are confusing leadership with going out of ones way to cause harm. That's a bit of a straw man since I was only saying that I don't need to go next door and offer to pay for the neighbors dogs to be trained. Since they are dog breeders that would probably be a waste of money anyway. Them controlling their dogs is their responsibility and shouldn't be my concern. My concern is my own family's interests. Do I need to feed their dogs and bathe them? Of course not. They are not MY dogs. I have responsibility towards their family at all. If I choose to be a good neighbor and see a threat to them I would call the police. It is then the police's job to protect them. But I am not their leader so I stay in my lane. If another man believes his leadership role involves buying your wife dinner you might think otherwise.

Messenger: CarterBlunt

Sent: 7/9/2020 4:11:24 AM

"I'm for girl power because women have been oppressed and marginalized."
I wouldn't really agree with that any more than men have been oppressed and marginalized. Some of it was imposed by nature, and out of our control. Even now, women complain about chivalry being dead, but at the same time say they want no gender roles. No awareness, just flailing in the dark.

"If things were different whenever we said 'girl power' we would think we were talking about actual girls the same way black men used to be called 'boy'."
It's weird to be offended about the word "girl". If a chick comes up to your group and is like, "hey boys", would you think it was a racist attack? Or Martin Lawrence and Will Smith, black men called "bad boys", that's so derogatory.

"LOL. Trap sprung. Then by the logic that you have argued thus far, if men are the better cooks then shouldn't men be the ones doing most of the cooking in the home? I mean... you want THE BEST, right?"

No, women should do the shopping and cook my food because they are generally better at multitasking, but they should be trained by the top chefs for quality assurance. If the woman is too busy making money to do the cooking, the man can do it, but it should take no more than 15 minutes to microwave.

"So just for the record, then you disagree with all wars and always side with the defender over the aggressor. Is this true?"

I generally consider nations interacting the same way as I view individuals interacting. They have their own values and direction. Sometimes they are dicks. As long as they're only hurting themselves, it's their own business. I'll help if I can. When they start abusing others, that's trickier, a time for immediate consequences. I personally would be willing to sacrifice to stop it, but I wouldn't blame others for staying out of it.

But suppose I go too far, suppose I strap the abuser down and torture them. Am I sure when I let them go they are gonna be a better person? Complicate that with the fact nations aren't just one individual. An indiscriminate strike risks punishing people for functional behavior. Terror vs fear is a huge balancing game in this case, one that I neither have the knowledge of regions, nor capacity for foresight to tell any nation what to do. Although, I use my eyes. Some cultures are particularly worthless. I'm extra bigoted against the Chinese, for example. If I could force them to have empathy for each other, I would. But that's a big ask.

"Either that or I'm a magnet for abused women,"
Well, it's usually girls who are molested, and boys doing the molesting, I can't argue with that, and molestation is more common than you might think. I think sexual repression is to blame for a lot of it. I even tried it myself, very ineffectually. I was molested left and right, but I was very passive and insecure, which I assume made me an easier target. I got molested by a weed dealer in like 7th grade, and he was doing it to all the kids. Guys don't talk about this stuff, that would be gay.

"That would be going out of your way to hurt the competition. I'm not talking about that. I'm just talking about not HELPING the competition."
I understood that as probably the case, but being descriptive is all the more important when you are exercising authority. Your definition of a good leader was too vague. People can't meet your expectations based on it. When you use authority as a tool, your needs have to be clear. That would be FULL accountability. Until you accept FULL accountability, I don't see how I could consider you more than a boy.

"You didn't name the circumstances."
You're right, I meant to. Assume he's 10 and just walks by a random kid, squares off on him and punches him for nothing, and you witness it. Did you train him well enough? Were you descriptive enough? Did you let him out in public? Would he be there in the first place if he didn't pop out of your loins? This is what I mean about FULL accountability. He is responsible for punching the kid and you are responsible for the circumstances leading up to it. That would be full accountability.

"But I don't think you have to be good to your adversaries and opponents."
You do. If you had to execute someone, would you flay them alive as the cartels do? What's the point? They're gonna be dead anyway. Punishment only serves a purpose to correct one's behavior, otherwise you're just hurting them for no reason. I'm not looking for revenge, I just want them to go away forever. If a lighter punishment will stop the behavior, I'll use that. Saying you don't have to be good means you're allowed to be evil. We don't need to ask if suffering is morally ambiguous. Those are the questions of pseudo-intellectuals. Evil is non-consented harm. We should always be aiming for the least possible amount of evil.

"Again, you are confusing leadership with going out of ones way to cause harm."
Ok, so you don't like these examples. I'm just using your definitions. So now a "good leader" is one who looks out for his own, but calls the cops if they see a threat and removes all accountability thereafter? So if someone is next door killing their children, you just call the cops and hope for the best? What if it's your son killing the children, let's say he's 25. Then are you responsible?

Messenger: Cedric

Sent: 7/9/2020 7:22:28 PM

Blessed Love Idren

Far ranging post InI have started here. I man having a difficult time following a lot of the ethics discussions so I sight will be limited.

CarterBlunt, I learned from another post that InI are almost the same age, and I sight some similarities to I man’s experiences with women when InI were younger. I man was so good to women and was shown no love in return. I man didn’t think myself a “feminist” for a long time because I thought feminism = girl power. Come to find out, the women InI age are heavily influenced by 2nd wave feminists. 3rd wave feminists are where its at, let me tell the I.

I man not saying I agree with absolutely everything I Empress teaches I about gender, because JAH know I feel like I brain isn’t wired to overstand it easily, but I man do listen and try to overstand and reason about it all.

From what I overstand, today's feminism is not working for NO gender roles. The gender roles of a man and woman can and should be clearly defined by society. “Women cook and clean and care for children”, “Men protect and fix things”, etc. The difference is, InI should not be able to tell someone what role they fit in, or that one person can only fit into one role or the other. I man know it is confusing to overstand one time, as still sometimes I have to really listen and ask about what the message is. For people like InI that are male bodied and 100% straight, we think it strange that someone would want the freedom to express themselves a different way. Except I man beginning to sight how it is a privilege still.

The battle for the rights of black people and people of color needs to take priority on this earth, InI can sight that. I think it would be beneficial for InI to see allies in InI Idren that are also fighting against white supremacy and the european world-view that remains destructive to InI and the world.

I man going on a slight tangent, but I felt like I man should try clarify for the I that “equality” shouldn’t be considered the same as “no gender roles”. That is a fight left over from 2nd wave feminists (who were pretty much all white), that is considered outdated.

I sight that a lot of the I’s language is “single guy” talk, and I think inside the I’s heart is good, so I think the I will be able to stay attentive and learn from an Empress one day. Equality benefits both people in the relationship and all InI at large. Ever read about traditional ancient Egyptians or other matriarchal societies or Native Nations that had completely different views on gender than the view that is pushed on InI by the west and the living remnants of colonialism? I find it interesting to learn about as Isamples of societies living in harmony with Nature.

Just a few quick things I have to say in response to the I’s words:
“It's weird to be offended about the word "girl". If a chick comes up to your group and is like, "hey boys", would you think it was a racist attack? Or Martin Lawrence and Will Smith, black men called "bad boys", that's so derogatory.”

The difference, if we use racism as a specific example, is that women couldn’t enact “reverse racism” on men because “reverse racism” doesn’t exist. So in the context the I uses, a woman calling a man “boy” wouldn’t come across with the same power dynamics in play as a man calling a woman “girl”. Same way with Martin Lawrence and Will Smith. They chose the title (or chose to accept the script) knowing full well their title was “boys” (reasoning on the treatment of people of color in today's white culture dominated entertainment industry aside). I man’s 3rd wave feminist Empress doesn’t mind when I call her a “sexy girl” cause she consents to me calling her that. She likes it. She decided that’s how she wants to be treated and injoys the attention from I man, so that makes it feminism. Cool, right? I agree a good Empress is difficult to find, but so is a good King. InI need to stay strong in our works and reasonings for good, demanding equality, promoting overstanding and peace.

Quoting the I again:
“No, women should do the shopping and cook my food because they are generally better at multitasking, but they should be trained by the top chefs for quality assurance. If the woman is too busy making money to do the cooking, the man can do it, but it should take no more than 15 minutes to microwave.”

Hahaha the I can make me laugh for sure. I know the I can see that is not a logical argument but does sound funny. I picture Carter expecting his future “girl next door” Empress to take lessons from “top chefs” before he will eat her food haha. Or his future business empire Empress that pays for the couch and the internet and computer and vacations to be all cool coming home to his 15 minute microwave meal and being like: “wow you are such a man” hahaha. Good luck with that and let InI know how it turns out.

Non-consensual touch or sexual relations should be considered a crime worse than murder and treated as such. Give thanks for the I sharing the story of the horrible crime that was perpetrated against the I as a youth. I man cannot sight words that would be appropriate to express my sorrow for this happening. Many Idren I know have been abused by wicked people in these ways. I man often pray for any form of justice possible as a cure for the wickedness on this earth. I agree with the I in thinking sexual repression is a BIG cause of these types of deviance. As the I sights, it even goes into play with InI being able to talk about it.

HAILE SELASSIE I BLESS THE YOUTH

Messenger: CarterBlunt

Sent: 7/10/2020 12:43:26 PM

I wasn't raped or anything, just coerced into doing stuff that grossed me out. It did lead to a lot of shame through my development, but I healed from it. Someone once put it that guilt is healthy, guilt is letting you know of a specific problem, but shame is when you feel guilty and don't know why. I would say shame is when you feel guilty for what was done to you, rather than actions you did. Talking about these events now produces about the same emotion as talking about that time I took a bite of Fruity Pebbles without realizing the milk was sour. No need to be sorry about my old shit.

I think more about the victims of my own actions, and how they interpreted those events. There are plenty of examples I could point to, which seem mild from my perspective, but for them could have been life altering. I even sexually humiliated girls when I was in preschool and kindergarten, which I still feel bad about. Did half-assed attempts at molestation in like 4th and 5th grade. As late as like age 24, I was doing uncomfortable touching and passive aggressive coercion to get my cheap thrills, following the lame PUA advice.

It wasn't until I found manhood101.com(which is gone now, unfortunately) that I started to take responsibility, and where a huge amount of the philosophy and ethics I'm talking about here came from. It was decidedly misogynistic, but nigh irrefutable. You can see "the principles" at work, and apply them all around you. The guy who ran it was merciless, but knew what he was doing. He trained people for free, if they put in the effort. His videos and memeing were second to none, just a complete legend. Stuff like this, especially the first 3 videos...

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQzHxM2RfoUwEjkgZtUMRiAUQFupxUmRk

Basically shaped me as a man. Exactly what I needed at the time, being the spineless introvert that I was. I was quite triggered by it at first! But I knew I was getting more truth than bullshit. There's even a free ebook, WITH PICTURES! Makes me wanna read it again.

I would agree third wave feminism has gender roles, but only to the extent they want special treatment. They want all the privileges of a man, AND all the privileges of a woman, with none of the downsides to either. Women who believe in traditional gender roles don't usually identify as feminists anymore, and women who believe in equality acknowledge many points of hypocrisy within feminism. It's far from settled. However, there is wisdom in what you are all saying. We all have a higher potential than what we are being encouraged to achieve.

Messenger: CarterBlunt

Sent: 7/10/2020 1:42:00 PM

Another important video from that playlist.

Messenger: IPXninja

Sent: 7/10/2020 8:22:51 PM

"I'm for girl power because women have been oppressed and marginalized."
Carter: I wouldn't really agree with that any more than men have been oppressed and marginalized. Some of it was imposed by nature, and out of our control. Even now, women complain about chivalry being dead, but at the same time say they want no gender roles. No awareness, just flailing in the dark.

I'm not following your logic here. Men oppressed by who? By women? How many women are in a position to oppress and marginalize men? Chivalry was the least a man could do for a woman considering all the things she was limited from by simply being born the "wrong" gender. But it's not enough to compensate. That's like me asking you to give up your voting rights in exchange for someone buying you dinner. Men did certain things for women mainly to prove he was someone worthy to provide for them. In a world where they couldn't provide for themselves this was the only option they had; and sometimes they didn't even have that because of arranged marriages.

"If things were different whenever we said 'girl power' we would think we were talking about actual girls the same way black men used to be called 'boy'."
Carter: It's weird to be offended about the word "girl". If a chick comes up to your group and is like, "hey boys", would you think it was a racist attack? Or Martin Lawrence and Will Smith, black men called "bad boys", that's so derogatory.

Yes, I don't think you'd react the same to another man calling you "honey" or "sweetie" either.

Carter: No, women should do the shopping and cook my food because they are generally better at multitasking, but they should be trained by the top chefs for quality assurance. If the woman is too busy making money to do the cooking, the man can do it, but it should take no more than 15 minutes to microwave.

But clearly, they aren't the best at cooking so why aren't you doing all the cooking? Cooking involves multitasking. You never watched Hell's kitchen? Being a CEO also involves a fair amount of multitasking so why don't you want women to be in charge in all executive positions so you can stay home and be the best at cooking? I think you're a smart guy. I just want you to see the double standard and that gender roles shouldn't be defined by whatever it is we think a gender is "best at".

Carter: I generally consider nations interacting the same way as I view individuals interacting. They have their own values and direction. Sometimes they are dicks. As long as they're only hurting themselves, it's their own business. I'll help if I can. When they start abusing others, that's trickier, a time for immediate consequences. I personally would be willing to sacrifice to stop it, but I wouldn't blame others for staying out of it.

I like this answer. If a person steals land a group of people shouldn't be legally able to steal land. If a person can't commit armed robbery than a nation shouldn't be able to commit armed robbery. If a person is being a dick because they're overly aggressive then a nation full of dicks (much like a sausage party) wouldn't be an attractive place to live and would threaten the peace and stability of the world. So if its not good to be a nation of dicks its probably not good to be an individual dick. So I'm not in favor of passivism or aggression. I'm in favor of balance and knowing when to use each tool in your belt. Therefore, there are different times a woman (who is properly prepared and equal to the task) should take the lead and others where a man who is properly prepared and equal to the task should take the lead. But its not about gender. It's about which one is qualified and not being overly passive or overly aggressive is simply one of the criteria. My ex was and remains extremely aggressive which has helped and hurt her in business. But she's now a VP. I know what she's capable of, not because I know her gender, but because I know her. That's all I'm saying dude. You can't really judge people by their color, shape, class, gender, culture, etc. None of these groups is a monolith.

Carter: Well, it's usually girls who are molested, and boys doing the molesting, I can't argue with that, and molestation is more common than you might think. I think sexual repression is to blame for a lot of it. I even tried it myself, very ineffectually. I was molested left and right, but I was very passive and insecure, which I assume made me an easier target. I got molested by a weed dealer in like 7th grade, and he was doing it to all the kids. Guys don't talk about this stuff, that would be gay.

very sorry that happened to you. Being passive and insecure happens to both boys and girls, men and women. But it is probably easier for a woman to be insecure since they are constantly judged on their looks, more than men and even spending $100s a month to look pretty they have to wear this image of beauty, often uncomfortably with high heel shoes and such, all because they're being judged by some standard of perfection men don't have to worry about. It is my personal opinion, that if society wasn't so unequal with respect to gender that more females would be more aggressive and secure; that these qualities only SEEM to be attached to gender but are actually a result of NURTURE rather than nature. But yes, you are correct, that a bully always picks on who he/she thinks is weak. There are females that do the same to other females in terms of psychological attacks.

Weak boys are typically judged based on strength and aggression (and later money). Weak girls are typically judged based on beauty and sexual desire. These same exact features and qualities are often what we judge each other on to determine value to the other gender. When male animals fight its often for the right to get the best female. So to a certain extent this is survival of the fittest. But you had just as much value as you were before. It's just that we are socialized differently as boys and girls to be something society tells us is more valuable. And right now humans are rebelling against that in favor of being themselves. The older generation doesn't understand this because we accepted the programming and therefore become the programmers of the next generation. But this makes us responsible for all the things we're trying to get the next generation to be, even when those things are the mistakes we made. Why does racism still exist after hundreds of years? Because we are programming it back into our children. And when you do the same with gender roles you will have children who accept it and program it into their children. But you'll also have those who wont. And we're seeing them wanting acceptance "as is".

Carter: Your definition of a good leader was too vague. People can't meet your expectations based on it.

Well I'm not a dictator. You should be able to determine on your own what the details of being a good leader is and adapt that to the specific needs of your family, company, or organization. There isn't 1 way to do things. The more I say its one way and you are wrong for doing it a different way the less of a good leader I am because I'm boxing you into my own thinking when my own thinking may be flawed or outdated. Giving people freedom is important in leadership. Otherwise they will be too dependent and therefore... weak.

Again. Balance is the key.

Carter: Assume he's 10 and just walks by a random kid, squares off on him and punches him for nothing

No child raised by me would ever do that. If they did, yes, I would be responsible. Not just for not training him though. The reason my children are good, and they are, isn't because of what I tell them. It's because of what I SHOW them. It is because of who I am, not just what I allow. And the reason I am who I am is because I saw who my Father was. Many young men grow up without that. It doesn't matter what their mom tells them because they didn't SEE the type of man their father was or they saw their father in a bad way that then allowed them to justify their own wrongs. So we are responsible, yes. But a child mostly learns how to be a human being through observation. Feel me?

Carter: You do. If you had to execute someone, would you flay them alive as the cartels do? What's the point? They're gonna be dead anyway.

Executing someone is ALL bad; anyway you're doing it. Flaying them alive is torture. That simply goes to what I already said about going out of one's way to hurt people. You don't have to do that. You can just stay out of their way. You said it yourself.

"As long as they're only hurting themselves, it's their own business."

In other words, why feel the need to go out of your way to lead other people who have their own leader who is responsible for them? This doesn't mean a good leader cannot ever intervene. It simply means a good leader needs to use good judgment in doing so and should be staying in their own lane unless the help is asked for. Because, just like the US tried to do in the middle east, sometimes what we think is help is actually harm to other people. Just because you have certain values doesn't automatically mean everyone in the world should be forced to adopt them. Maybe later they will... when they are ready. But there are better ways to handle those situations. I know you mean well though. I know its coming from a good place and you have a good heart that wants to help others. I would never discourage that. It should be encouraged. But leading has to be balanced so that you're not causing more harm than good. And that starts with making sure your own people are good first and then, when others desire your leadership, then they are included in that camp of "your own people" and now you are responsible for them as well. But if they're not in that camp they may not want to be.

Carter: Saying you don't have to be good means you're allowed to be evil.

I'm sorry you are misinterpreting. If I say hello as I pass by you on the street. That's polite. Do I have to do it? No. Do everyone you pass by say hello? Do you say hello to every person you pass by? including going in and out of stores? If they say nothing, is it being evil or is it minding their own business? So there is a space between good and evil, between calling someone a friend and calling someone a foe, between telling someone they're fat and telling someone they're skinny; between saying hello and saying F off. There is a saying, "if you don't have anything good to say, then don't say anything at all."

"Again, you are confusing leadership with going out of ones way to cause harm."

Carter: Ok, so you don't like these examples. I'm just using your definitions. So now a "good leader" is one who looks out for his own, but calls the cops if they see a threat and removes all accountability thereafter? So if someone is next door killing their children, you just call the cops and hope for the best? What if it's your son killing the children, let's say he's 25. Then are you responsible?

Am I Batman? No. I would likely get shot by the first cop on scene. Superheroes who do these things tend to have some kind of defense against police bullets. I don't. And there has already been black people shot trying to help in situations. When you call 911 funny thing is they never deputize you over the phone and ask if you have a weapon and will you go over there and try to stop whatever's happening. Why? Because you may make the situation worse. How you know the kids are being killed? What if you're wrong and you break into their house and they shoot you because they think YOU are there to kill them? I know... getting involved always seems like the right thing to do. But a good leader is primarily going to keep their own family safe before helping others. Not saying you should never help others. I'm saying that isn't part of being a good leader to those you are actually LEADING. My responsibility to MY family in a domestic situation with a neighbor is to keep MY family safe. The other family is the responsibility of the leader of that family. Just as I am responsible if my sun punches people that man is responsible for his own actions and his parents for not teaching him. I am not responsible for his actions or decisions. That's why its funny when people talk about black on black crime as if we are responsible for what other people do who happen to share the same skin color. If they shared the same hair color would people say the same? Of course not. It's racist to think you are responsible for what people of your "race" do.

I'll give you a real example where I failed. I used to live across the street from a drug addict. He was harmless. When his mother went to the hospital he was alone. He started asking the neighbors for help. We helped. He asked for water. We gave him water. He asked for rides. We gave him rides. Eventually, my wife at the time didn't feel safe. And she wanted me to cut him off and tell him to stay away. I tried to convince her that he was harmless and wasn't a danger to our family. I even had a police officer who knew him come to our house to talk to her about him. I gave him my personal phone number so he could call me directly if he needed something so that she wouldn't have to deal with him. I was still willing to help because that's just how I am. But guess what? She always felt like I wasn't protecting her because I didn't force the guy to stop coming around; even though he was mostly just annoying and inconvenient. She didn't feel safe and blamed me because I was supposed to make her feel safe. Being a good leader isn't the same as being a good person. In that situation a better leader would have perhaps done things different to make sure his wife felt protected. But I sacrificed her feelings for the sake of being a good neighbor. Do you understand?

Messenger: IPXninja

Sent: 7/10/2020 10:32:39 PM

Monotone:

While this has some element of truth it actually just assumes that all humans have the same response to stimuli which is not the case. You can convince people it is the case by controlling all the examples and getting them to agree without seeing that there are many other examples that don't show that. But the guy doing the video isn't claiming to be a behavioral scientist. They're not citing studies. Therefore, you don't know how much of their view is effected by bias.

https://psychcentral.com/lib/how-to-recognize-a-psychopath/

Psychopaths often speak in a monotone voice. Does it mean that if you speak in a monotone voice you're a psycho? Of course not. This is simply evidence of bias.

"The rise and fall of inflection in most people’s verbal delivery is a sign of emotion."

A lot of people can't keep their emotions in check. If you debate them while they're in their feelings they may get loud and start emoting. While they're doing this they are less likely to listen with an open mind. They're defensive.

Could they be defensive and get upset and their voice changes because they don't know what the *@#$ they're talking about?!

Absolutely.

But if you know what you're talking about there's no real reason to get heated if your argument isn't accepted. You can try to deliver it a different way, use better examples, use more sources, references, etc. And if you are more respectful then you can help the other person be less defensive. Like for me personally, when I compliment you I'm not trying to handle you in anyway. I'm being honest with my compliments. But I'm also honest with my compliments so that the person is at ease and knows I'm not attacking them even if I say something that disagrees. It's not an attack. And that respect can go a long ways.

I also have been blessed with patience. But it has limits and eventually I can still get upset and say things I might regret or feel the need to apologize for later. Being in control of your tone is like being in control of your temper. Everything you feel doesn't need to be expressed or for everyone around you to deal with. No one needs to be "out of control". Again, it's about balance. You shouldn't get upset when it's not an appropriate response. And you shouldn't NOT get upset when it is appropriate. That's my problem with the video. He seems to be taking the case of equating monotone in the face of a situation where a different response is warranted, to ALL cases in which a person might speak with an even tone.

http://stimstammersandwinks.blogspot.com/2014/09/on-benefits-of-speaking-in-monotone.html

71 - 80

Return to Reasoning List