Minimizing defection actually limits cooperation and promotes top-down failure modes which are rigor mortis. Some coordination results from top-down control, but massive amounts of aliasing error (relative to fitness) also. Satoshi's PoW design suffers from this problem and my solution to fixing it is involved with increasing decentralization and removing that aliasing error.
Maximizing cooperation is a coordination problem. This has to do with Coasian costs. It is an economic and technology issue. For solutions, we need decentralized paradigms such as open source. Religion isn't objective open source. It is unfalsifiable, top-down control.
When you argue that defection limits cooperation you appear to be confusing two distinct entities. Defection and rebellion are not synonyms. Cooperation involves a mutually beneficial exchange that improves the well-being of both participants. Defection is an interaction that benefits one party at the expense of another. Defection always implies violence, the threat of violence, ignorance, or forced interaction. Top-down control fulfills its mandate when it maximizes cooperation and minimizes defection. Top-down control also uses fear, violence, and forced interaction. Top-down control is thus only morally justified if the use of those things results in an overall increase in cooperation and a reduction in defection. The amount of top-down control required to maximize cooperation is inversely proportional to knowledge. As knowledge advances the of top-down control needed to maximize cooperation shrinks. However, humans are morally flawed resulting in recurrent excessive concentrations of power and a general refusal to cede power. The human condition is thus marked the gradual progression of technological and moral progress with either no accompanying change in top-down control or a counterintuitive increase in top-down control. When this happens the top-down control itself limits cooperation and becomes a form of defection. The situation is like a pressure cooker that eventually explodes in a rebellion resetting the top-down control to a more appropriate level. Defection and rebellion are thus entirely separate phenomenon. The first is evil and always morally unjustifiable. The second is not only just but a moral obligation once a superior solution to top-down failure becomes available. A visual example may help: This is rebellion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6ldlEbbphsThis is defection: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t7gG3XVqW0You often repeat the "we just need decentralization paradigms" argument. That is only half true. Yes we need decentralization paradigms. This is the growth of knowledge above. However, decentralization paradigms are only half of what we need. The other half of what we need is a top-down control that maximizes cooperation alongside new decentralization paradigms. Your anarchist tendencies recurrently lead to you gloss over this second part. You acknowledge that top-down control cannot be avoided then seem to stop thinking about it. The reality is we need top-down control just as much as we need decentralization paradigms. That may be a bitter pill to swallow for an anarchist. The need for top-down control does not go away just because we don't like it or don't want to think about it. I notice you tend to brush off this issue with comments such as "I don't want to fix the world" and "Trying to fix society is evil." these come across as avoidance. Adopting a lets just do decentralized anarchy and let the cards fall where they may approach is not a rational position. Religion indeed is top-down control, but that statement is meaningless without context. We both need top-down control and will always need top-down control. Thus ultimately the relevant question is what kind of top-down control is religion. That answer of course varies depending on what kind of religion we are talking about. The primitive idols worshiping pagans had horrific gods. These religions were tools of extreme top-down oppression and their extinction is welcome. See my post on Pagans and Human Sacrifice if you are interested in more on this. However, belief in God especially individual belief in God coupled with a fear of God is something else entirely. A society where all individuals genuinely believed in and feared God would have very little defection. What defection did occur would be the result of ignorance not malice and even that would decline with time as knowledge progressed. An individual restrained only by a genuine belief and fear of God has complete operational autonomy he would willing choose only cooperation and never defection limited only by his knowledge of what actions constituted genuine cooperation. Belief in God is top-down control. It is the purest manifestation of such control enabling a maximisation of freedom. Rejecting God leads ultimately to higher levels of defection and consequentially less freedom. Proverbs 9:10
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom" |
|
|
|
This is 3rd or 4th time I am repeating to you that it is self-selection where those who remain are stronger. Why do you keep ignoring this point?
You are trying to fix all of society. I am not. I am just trying to compete. Competition is good. Trying to fix society is evil.
Optimizing voluntary cooperation in no way limits self-selection. Competition is good but the promotion of competition over cooperation is not. I agree we are repeating ourselves and not moving towards consensus. I propose we wind down this discussion as an intractable philosophical difference. |
|
|
|
As I pointed out in prior discussion, this is appropriate for maximizing cooperation between weak enslaved men. It is a crab bucket mentality. It is thus very compatible with sliding into socialism, SJWs, etc.. Yes so many humans turn to religion because they are so weak. (And then why are we surprised that religion has contributed to megadeath and atrocities  ) ... Personal jibes aside your advocated belief system equates voluntary cooperation to weakness. It therefore commits you to an strategy that is not competitive over a multi-generational time horizon. Short term it may suffice. Fear of the LORD would necessitate opposing socialism if socialism trespasses beyond its proper role. Your slippery slope argument is false. |
|
|
|
God and religion have nothing to do with it. If the men are so stupid that they need to fear a God in order to adhere to the truths they've been taught, then the culture is growing weaker not stronger.
I am arguing for a culture that grows stronger via natural selection and free will of choice. And never did I expect all men to join such a culture because I don't think the bell curve of IQ is ever going to be eliminated.
...
God is needed because the primary struggle is an individual one. Our greatest battle is with ourselves. It is very easy to say women shouldn't do this or society shouldn't do that. It is orders of magnitude more difficult to say I shouldn't do this especially when I want to and can get away with it. Your thinking continues to return to the concept of controlling others (especially women) indirectly through culture when the real battle is that of individual women and individual men learning to improve and elevate ourselves. Cultural structures can help us win or lose this struggle but they are ultimately secondary. God is necessarily because otherwise we lack the motivation and strength to succeed. Without God our focus inevitably turns away from the self and towards controlling others either directly or indirectly. ... So yeah maybe you could use the delusion of a fear of God to keep the women fearful of defection, but it is counterproductive to use it on men, because all you are accomplishing is enslaving the weak men in religion and weakening the culture. And this is why religion repeatedly leads to large scale failure and megadeath. ... If I can't control myself to adhere to a correct multi-generational strategy, then how will God help me? By enslaving me in fear? I think you don't trust yourself? Then how can you ever succeed if can't control yourself? If you can control yourself, then why do you need a fear of God? ... I don't lack the motivation and hopefully also not lacking the strength. If we don't have that then we are weak males and we will always be enslaved. ... Delusion (religion) won't get the males there. Sorry. But of course feel free to pursue what ever you want. If you can make a cogent rebuttal then of course I want to read it. I want to know if someone can show me a better way. ... I am not going to just lay down and accept an argument that doesn't seem to make sense to me. I deluded myself with too much bullshit over the 50 years and received a lot of incorrect philosophical guidance from others. I am not going to follow any more fools (and that includes being wary of my own myopia but that doesn't mean I need to fear a God, although it does mean I need to open source). If you want to convince me, then you need to have impeccable logic. Proverbs 9:10
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom" The fear of God is necessary to maximize cooperation over defection. It is not cost free so individuals who fear God must form a community of like minded individuals to maximize the benefits of cooperation. Ultimately there is no current or future functional mechanism more optimized for maximizing cooperation then a universal and genuine the fear of the LORD. This is why religion will grow and ultimately out compete lesser more inefficient strategies. For a deeper analysis we must enter the realm of religious texts. http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/pol/pol25.htmThe Fear of God The son of Rabbi Hunnah said, "He who possesses a knowledge of God's law, without the fear of Him, is as one who has been intrusted with the inner keys of a treasury, but from whom the outer ones are withheld." Rabbi Alexander said, "He who possesses worldly wisdom and fears not the Lord, is as one who designs building a house and completes only the door, for as David wrote in Psalm 111th, 'The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord." When Rabbi Jochanan was ill, his pupils visited him and asked him for a blessing. With his dying voice the Rabbi said, "I pray that you may fear God as you fear man." "What!" exclaimed his pupils, "should we not fear God more than man?" "I should be well content," answered the sage, if your actions proved that you feared Him as much. When you do wrong you first make sure that no human eyes see you; show the same fear of God, who sees everywhere, and everything, at all times." Abba says we can show our fear of God in our intercourse p. 239 with one another. "Speak pleasantly and kindly to every one;" he says, "trying to pacify anger, seeking peace, and pursuing it with your brethren and with all the world, and by this means you will gain that 'favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man,' which Solomon so highly prized." (Prov. 3: 9.) Rabbi Jochanan had heard Rabbi Simon, son of Jochay, illustrate by a parable that passage of Isaiah which reads as follows: "I, the Lord, love uprightness; but hate robbery (converted) into burnt-offering." A king having imported certain goods upon which he laid a duty, bade his officers, as they passed the custom-house, to stop and pay the usual tariff. Greatly astonished, his attendants addressed him thus: "Sire! all that is collected belongs to your majesty; why then give what must be eventually paid into thy treasury?" "Because," answered the monarch, "I wish travellers to learn from the action I now order you to perform, how abhorrent dishonesty is in my eyes." Even so is it regarding the dealings of the Almighty with us, pilgrims on earth. Though all we possess belongs to Him, yet He adds to it continually, in order to increase our temporal enjoyment. Should any one imagine, therefore, that to defraud man in order to present to God, what is solely His own, might be allowable, he would be rebuked by the teachings of Holy Writ, for the just God condemns the act, and calls it hateful. From this we may then infer, for instance, that palm-branches, stolen in order to perform therewith the prescribed rites at the Feast of Tabernacles, are unfit for use by reason of the unlawful manner in which they were obtained. Rabbi Eleazer said: "He who is guided by righteousness and justice in all his doings, may justly be asserted to have p. 240 copied God in His unbounded beneficence. For of Him (blessed be His name) we read, 'He loveth righteousness and justice;' that is, 'The earth is filled with the loving kindness of God.'" Might we think that to follow such a course is an easy task? No! The virtue of beneficence can be gained only by great efforts. Will it be difficult, however, for him that has the fear of God constantly before his eyes to acquire this attribute? No; he will easily attain it, whose every act is done in the fear of the Lord. "A crown of grace is the hoary head; on the way of righteousness can it be found." So taught Solomon in his Proverbs. Hence various Rabbis, who had attained an advanced age, were questioned by their pupils as to the probable cause that had secured them that mark of divine favour. Rabbi Nechumah answered that, in regard to himself, God had taken cognisance of three principles by which he had endeavoured to guide his conduct. First, he had never striven to exalt his own standing by lowering that of his neighbour. This was agreeable to the example set by Rabbi Hunna, for the latter, while bearing on his shoulders a heavy spade, was met by Rabbi Choana Ben Chanilai, who, considering the burden derogatory to the dignity of so great a man, insisted upon relieving him of the implement and carrying it himself. But Rabbi Hunna refused, saying, "Were this your habitual calling I might permit it, but I certainly shall not permit another to perform an office which, if clone by myself, may be looked upon by some as menial." Secondly, he had never gone to his night's rest with a heart harbouring ill-will against his fellow-man, conformably with the practice of Mar Zutra, who, before sleeping, offered p. 241 this prayer: "O Lord! forgive all those who have done me injury." Thirdly, he was not penurious, following the example of the righteous Job, of whom the sages relate that he declined to receive the change due him after making a purchase. Another Rabbi, bearing also the name of Nechumah, replied to Rabbi Akiba, that he believed himself to have been blessed with long life because, in his official capacity, he had invariably set his face against accepting presents, mindful of what Solomon wrote, "He that hateth gifts will live." Another of his merits he conceived to be that of never resenting an offence; mindful of the words of Rabba, "He who is indulgent towards others' faults, will be mercifully dealt with by the Supreme Judge." Rabbi Zera said that the merit of having reached an extreme age was in his case due, under Providence, to his conduct through life. He governed his household with mildness and forbearance. He refrained from advancing an opinion before his superiors in wisdom. He avoided rehearsing the word of God in places not entirely free from uncleanliness. He wore the phylacteries all day, that he might be reminded of his religious duties. He did not make the college where sacred knowledge is taught, a place of convenience, as, for instance, to sleep there, either occasionally or habitually. He never rejoiced over the downfall of a fellow-mortal, nor would he designate another by a name objectionable to the party personally, or to the family of which he was a member. |
|
|
|
CoinCube, I suggest you post a link to where you've moved this discussion to (Politics & Society). You could put any rebuttal there. If I wasn't interested in your thoughts, I wouldn't be discussing it with you.
But I am not going to just lay down and accept an argument that doesn't seem to make sense to me. I deluded myself with too much bullshit over the 50 years and received a lot of incorrect philosophical guidance from others. I am not going to follow any more fools (and that includes being wary of my own myopia but that doesn't mean I need to fear a God, although it does mean I need to open source). If you want to convince me, then you need to have impeccable logic.
There are many positions you have taken in the posts immediately up thread. Some of these are correct and others are not but most are tangential to the underlying issue. There is also one mischaracterization of my position but that is also irrelevant. You have raised one central query, however, that is critical to the discussion above. That question revolves around the fear of God. Is it necessary? I posted my reasoning on this issue as well as the reasoning of others in the Health and Religion thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg17633233#msg17633233 |
|
|
|
God and religion have nothing to do with it. If the men are so stupid that they need to fear a God in order to adhere to the truths they've been taught, then the culture is growing weaker not stronger.
I am arguing for a culture that grows stronger via natural selection and free will of choice. And never did I expect all men to join such a culture because I don't think the bell curve of IQ is ever going to be eliminated.
...
God is needed because the primary struggle is an individual one. Our greatest battle is with ourselves. It is very easy to say women shouldn't do this or society shouldn't do that. It is orders of magnitude more difficult to say I shouldn't do this especially when I want to and can get away with it. Your thinking continues to return to the concept of controlling others (especially women) indirectly through culture when the real battle is that of individual women and individual men learning to improve and elevate ourselves. Cultural structures can help us win or lose this struggle but they are ultimately secondary. God is necessarily because otherwise we lack the motivation and strength to succeed. Without God our focus inevitably turns away from the self and towards controlling others either directly or indirectly. ... So yeah maybe you could use the delusion of a fear of God to keep the women fearful of defection, but it is counterproductive to use it on men, because all you are accomplishing is enslaving the weak men in religion and weakening the culture. And this is why religion repeatedly leads to large scale failure and megadeath. ... If I can't control myself to adhere to a correct multi-generational strategy, then how will God help me? By enslaving me in fear? I think you don't trust yourself? Then how can you ever succeed if can't control yourself? If you can control yourself, then why do you need a fear of God? ... I don't lack the motivation and hopefully also not lacking the strength. If we don't have that then we are weak males and we will always be enslaved. ... Delusion (religion) won't get the males there. Sorry. But of course feel free to pursue what ever you want. If you can make a cogent rebuttal then of course I want to read it. I want to know if someone can show me a better way. ... I am not going to just lay down and accept an argument that doesn't seem to make sense to me. I deluded myself with too much bullshit over the 50 years and received a lot of incorrect philosophical guidance from others. I am not going to follow any more fools (and that includes being wary of my own myopia but that doesn't mean I need to fear a God, although it does mean I need to open source). If you want to convince me, then you need to have impeccable logic. Proverbs 9:10
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom" The fear of God is necessary to maximize cooperation over defection. It is not cost free so individuals who fear God must form a community of like minded individuals to maximize the benefits of cooperation. Ultimately there is no current or future functional mechanism more optimized for maximizing cooperation then a universal and genuine the fear of the LORD. This is why religion will grow and ultimately out compete lesser more inefficient strategies. For a deeper analysis we must enter the realm of religious texts. http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/pol/pol25.htmThe Fear of God The son of Rabbi Hunnah said, "He who possesses a knowledge of God's law, without the fear of Him, is as one who has been intrusted with the inner keys of a treasury, but from whom the outer ones are withheld." Rabbi Alexander said, "He who possesses worldly wisdom and fears not the Lord, is as one who designs building a house and completes only the door, for as David wrote in Psalm 111th, 'The beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord." When Rabbi Jochanan was ill, his pupils visited him and asked him for a blessing. With his dying voice the Rabbi said, "I pray that you may fear God as you fear man." "What!" exclaimed his pupils, "should we not fear God more than man?" "I should be well content," answered the sage, if your actions proved that you feared Him as much. When you do wrong you first make sure that no human eyes see you; show the same fear of God, who sees everywhere, and everything, at all times." Abba says we can show our fear of God in our intercourse p. 239 with one another. "Speak pleasantly and kindly to every one;" he says, "trying to pacify anger, seeking peace, and pursuing it with your brethren and with all the world, and by this means you will gain that 'favour and good understanding in the sight of God and man,' which Solomon so highly prized." (Prov. 3: 9.) Rabbi Jochanan had heard Rabbi Simon, son of Jochay, illustrate by a parable that passage of Isaiah which reads as follows: "I, the Lord, love uprightness; but hate robbery (converted) into burnt-offering." A king having imported certain goods upon which he laid a duty, bade his officers, as they passed the custom-house, to stop and pay the usual tariff. Greatly astonished, his attendants addressed him thus: "Sire! all that is collected belongs to your majesty; why then give what must be eventually paid into thy treasury?" "Because," answered the monarch, "I wish travellers to learn from the action I now order you to perform, how abhorrent dishonesty is in my eyes." Even so is it regarding the dealings of the Almighty with us, pilgrims on earth. Though all we possess belongs to Him, yet He adds to it continually, in order to increase our temporal enjoyment. Should any one imagine, therefore, that to defraud man in order to present to God, what is solely His own, might be allowable, he would be rebuked by the teachings of Holy Writ, for the just God condemns the act, and calls it hateful. From this we may then infer, for instance, that palm-branches, stolen in order to perform therewith the prescribed rites at the Feast of Tabernacles, are unfit for use by reason of the unlawful manner in which they were obtained. Rabbi Eleazer said: "He who is guided by righteousness and justice in all his doings, may justly be asserted to have p. 240 copied God in His unbounded beneficence. For of Him (blessed be His name) we read, 'He loveth righteousness and justice;' that is, 'The earth is filled with the loving kindness of God.'" Might we think that to follow such a course is an easy task? No! The virtue of beneficence can be gained only by great efforts. Will it be difficult, however, for him that has the fear of God constantly before his eyes to acquire this attribute? No; he will easily attain it, whose every act is done in the fear of the Lord. "A crown of grace is the hoary head; on the way of righteousness can it be found." So taught Solomon in his Proverbs. Hence various Rabbis, who had attained an advanced age, were questioned by their pupils as to the probable cause that had secured them that mark of divine favour. Rabbi Nechumah answered that, in regard to himself, God had taken cognisance of three principles by which he had endeavoured to guide his conduct. First, he had never striven to exalt his own standing by lowering that of his neighbour. This was agreeable to the example set by Rabbi Hunna, for the latter, while bearing on his shoulders a heavy spade, was met by Rabbi Choana Ben Chanilai, who, considering the burden derogatory to the dignity of so great a man, insisted upon relieving him of the implement and carrying it himself. But Rabbi Hunna refused, saying, "Were this your habitual calling I might permit it, but I certainly shall not permit another to perform an office which, if clone by myself, may be looked upon by some as menial." Secondly, he had never gone to his night's rest with a heart harbouring ill-will against his fellow-man, conformably with the practice of Mar Zutra, who, before sleeping, offered p. 241 this prayer: "O Lord! forgive all those who have done me injury." Thirdly, he was not penurious, following the example of the righteous Job, of whom the sages relate that he declined to receive the change due him after making a purchase. Another Rabbi, bearing also the name of Nechumah, replied to Rabbi Akiba, that he believed himself to have been blessed with long life because, in his official capacity, he had invariably set his face against accepting presents, mindful of what Solomon wrote, "He that hateth gifts will live." Another of his merits he conceived to be that of never resenting an offence; mindful of the words of Rabba, "He who is indulgent towards others' faults, will be mercifully dealt with by the Supreme Judge." Rabbi Zera said that the merit of having reached an extreme age was in his case due, under Providence, to his conduct through life. He governed his household with mildness and forbearance. He refrained from advancing an opinion before his superiors in wisdom. He avoided rehearsing the word of God in places not entirely free from uncleanliness. He wore the phylacteries all day, that he might be reminded of his religious duties. He did not make the college where sacred knowledge is taught, a place of convenience, as, for instance, to sleep there, either occasionally or habitually. He never rejoiced over the downfall of a fellow-mortal, nor would he designate another by a name objectionable to the party personally, or to the family of which he was a member. |
|
|
|
I cannot speak for the US, but here in Canada, most people enroll their kids in 'Christian/Catholic' schools because those schools have less problems with drugs and gun violence.
The schools are not better, but they are safer.
My kids go to 'Christian' schools so are many kids from 'Muslim' and 'Buddist' families. The religion class goes until Grade 10, then the IB (International Baccalaureate) program starts.
Only hardcore religious fanatics homeschool their children. Amish and Mennonite communities 'school' programs run until Grade 7, then kids go to work in construction, farms etc. There are some Mennonite kids
that go to 'Mennonite University', but most end up doing menial jobs all their lives.
To teach kids at home requires a lot of effort (if you want your kids to succeed in university).
It is easier to rely on the government school programs, teaching aids, and augment/enhance the curriculum at home as required.
Going off on a tangent and homeschool them on all the Bible nonsense and hate is just harmful, IMHO.
Safer schools that teach character education are better. Schools that do a better job teaching the basics reading, writing, arithmetic are also better. Schools better in one area but weaker in another involves trade-offs. The people best positioned to make a decision on which option is best for children are parents. I agree that teaching kids at home requires tremendous effort if you want your kids to succeed at a university. However, it is not impossible. I also agree that it is much easier to pool resources at a school. For parents who feel that government schools are too unsafe or too immoral most of the time the best option would be a strictly religious school. However, those are expensive and not located in every geographic area. For parents who have the ability to home-school their children and the time, but lack the financial resources or the geography to send their children to a religious school homeschooling is a rational choice and there is nothing wrong with it. Obvious we agree that if parents are not capable of education their children on the basics to at least to the level of a below average traditional school they should not be homeschooling. The purpose of standardized testing for home-schooled children is to intercede in these cases. |
|
|
|
I think such parents are just being selfish. Overprotective, they just want to keep kids at home.
This form of abuse should be illegal.
I think parents are trying to do what they feel is best for their children. Empowering the state to override parental will should only be done in clear and extreme cases of abuse. This is not one of those situations. Homeschooled children are required to take regular exams to show they are learning and receiving an education. If their performance is too poor they have to return to traditional schooling. That is a reasonable compromise. Also reasonable are school voucher programs that allow parents to pull out of bad public schools and enroll in private or religious schools. |
|
|
|
God and religion have nothing to do with it. If the men are so stupid that they need to fear a God in order to adhere to the truths they've been taught, then the culture is growing weaker not stronger.
I am arguing for a culture that grows stronger via natural selection and free will of choice. And never did I expect all men to join such a culture because I don't think the bell curve of IQ is ever going to be eliminated.
Note I am honoring your research on evolution, biology, and social organization. I have adopted your defection and culling by free choice themes (which you employed to sell religion). As usual, I am clever about how I assimilate all the information I have been exposed to.
I am quite sure suspect we have more than exhausted the patience of the readers in this thread looking for discussions on Martin Armstrong so I will reply one last time and let the matter rest. God is needed because the primary struggle is an individual one. Our greatest battle is with ourselves. It is very easy to say women shouldn't do this or society shouldn't do that. It is orders of magnitude more difficult to say I shouldn't do this especially when I want to and can get away with it. Your thinking continues to return to the concept of controlling others (especially women) indirectly through culture when the real battle is that of individual women and individual men learning to improve and elevate ourselves. Cultural structures can help us win or lose this struggle but they are ultimately secondary. God is necessarily because otherwise we lack the motivation and strength to succeed. Without God our focus inevitably turns away from the self and towards controlling others either directly or indirectly. |
|
|
|
What makes these parents think they can do a better job than a group of teachers with advanced degrees and years of teaching experience. Pure ignorance.
But then again, they are Christian so ignorance runs in their blood.
No it is mainly because these parents believe that schools no longer teach the most important lesson children must learn that of character education. Schooling has become a moral void which is actually quite dangerous for a young child. Parents who homeschool judge the cost of educational loss to be offset the by the gains in establishing an education based on character development free of the drugs, gangs, teenage sex, and liberal social morals so dominant in today's schools. Its not a trade off I have judged worth it but I understand it. This short 5 minute video may help to clarify the issue for you: How Do We Make Society Better? |
|
|
|
...
Anything which correctly maintains your culture is by definition not evil.
...
Conquest should be for cultural gains, i.e. incorporating the best genetics from external cultures. This can even be an entirely decentralized form of conquest, i.e. each young male off on his own grabbing some female(s) who are pliant (also serves as an outlet/goal for their natural hormonal surge at the young age).
I won't get any where towards that goal with bearded orthodox Jews, because they have their rationality clouded by all these pagan religious customs and rituals.
I think any women involved should always be free to leave the culture I propose and go try their luck as Westernized, white women (but of course they would be ostrasized from the geographically decentralized community that follows the culture I propose and would essentially destroy their life by doing so as example to all those who foolishly wish to follow them). So to be clear, I am not advocating slavery. Every member of the culture I propose must retain their free will (and I think this is absolutely essential for any strategy that has an hope of being a lasting set of rational beliefs based in facts that wins and spreads out over many generations).
There are two arguments here one of slavery and one of freedom. They are mutually incompatible. To help illustrate why it helps to examine the nature of evil. There are two kinds of evil. The first is self-destructive evil. This is the most obvious type of evil and your examples above (drunkenness, failure to work out, etc) fall into this category. Self-destructive evil is a form of irrationality self-harm due to ignorance or lack of self-control. Far more insidious is the use of evil use to strengthen oneself or ones people. Hitler's plan of enslaving the Slavic race and exterminating most of them to make way for German settlers if actualized would have been this type of evil. Arguing that whatever strengthens your local culture is good effectively redefines evil as good. It is an argument for the right of the strong to enslave and kill the weak. You will indeed find this argument to be incompatible with Judaism or any Christian denomination for that matter. These faiths require adherents to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. They forbid such evil even if it "strengthens" the society. No. People with emancipated women get fewer kids. We have more children than very poor people with equally emancipated women.
...
Women should not be educated past puberty, and before puberty should be taught about being wives and mothers. They should be under the authority of their fathers until they are under the authority of the husbands.
White men destroyed themselves because they fail to understand how to raise their daughters. They don't understand that women have no disciple. They view marriage as a compromise where the man has to do a bunch of nonsense that the woman's lack of discipline requires. This is a slippery slope which leads down the road of leaning ever further left in politics and culture. And eventually destroys the society. James A Donald's thesis that we should just enslave our women is very similar to the argument of Himmler when he argued that education for non-Germans be restricted to elementary school just enough to teach them to write their names and obey Germans. This was not an irrational policy for the Germans as a mechanism for maintaining control and eventually exterminating or "selectively reducing" a conquered people. However, it is entirely incompatible with self-determination, freedom, and ultimately progress. The strategy of enslaving women to force them to do what men want is morally identical. It is not irrational but it is very evil. Ultimately embracing a strategy of might makes right as long as it is good for the local culture is one of stagnation. To use the analogy up-thread it transforms the world into a prison of competing gangs a zero-sum game. Such strategies will ultimately lose out over time to strategies of cooperation. In the end we are one species. The solution is not to enslave other cultures or enslave our women or anyone else for that matter but to allow for the matching of of social rewards to healthy behavior so people willingly choose to do the right thing both for themselves for society as a whole not via force and oppression but via voluntary cooperation. Mr. Donald' strongly disagrees with that concept that the emancipation of slaves, the end of dueling, blasphemy laws, the divine right of kings, woman’s suffrage and participation in the workforce represented progress. He is stuck in a primitive mindset failing to understand the actual nature of progress. His mindset is that Cycle #2 in the table below is ultimate progress and that everything that follows is bad. This is a rational view for someone who is highly optimized for warlordism and violence and wishes to engage in such things. However, it is a worldview that offers nothing but stagnation and ultimately slavery. Cycles of Contention | | Cycle #1 | Cycle #2 | Cycle #3 | Cycle #4 | Cycle #5 | Cycle #6 | | Mechanism of Control | Knowledge of Evil | Warlordism | Holy War | Usury | Universal Surveillance | Hedonism | | Rulers | The Strong | Despots | God Kings/Monarchs | Capitalists | Oligarchs (NWO) | Decentralized Government | | Life of the Ruled | "Nasty, Brutish, Short" | Slaves | Surfs | Debtors | Basic Income Recipients | Knowledge Workers | | Facilitated Advance | Knowledge of Good | Commerce | Rule of Law | Growth | Transparency | Ascesis |
Your other argument the one for freedom of choice but not freedom from consequence is a much healthier view and I urge you to continue on this line of thinking . You have to choose. Freedom of choice is entirely incompatible with Mr. Donald's primitavism above. Your hypothetical of a sustainable multi-generational social structure built around a set of beliefs that are taught and followed on a voluntary basis requiring compliance but permitting freedom to leave has never existed and will never exist outside of the context of God and religion. |
|
|
|
Just to clear up what "homeschooling" means. Parents without enough money, time or care about their kids education tell the school board they will teach their children at home. The parents rarely have enough of an education themselves to form coherent sentences and usually far less than required to teach. Almost zero/none/no homeschooling parents have a teaching degree. Almost zero/none/no Christian homeschooling parents teach alternate theories that contradict their beliefs. They refuse to teach evolution or even the basics of other world religions. They much prefer to raise racist, sexist, bigoted freaks that go out into the world and do horrible things. Child sexual assault, torture, sociopathological programming, murder are taught in homeschooling. For more info read Homeschooling Invisible Children http://hsinvisiblechildren.orgWow someone really loves state power and state control. I have the resources that have enabled me to purchase a home in a very good school distinct so I utilize the public school system. It is a good value in my area. However, if I was stuck in an area with a very poor school system (and they exist) there is no way in a million years I would send my kids into an environment that is highly likely to damage them. I would work harder and have my wife stay home and home-school. Its not an ideal solution as is implies the lack of an adequate community to pool resources but sometimes it is the best option for parents. Your comments that homeschooling is a mechanism for "raising racist, sexist, bigoted freaks that go out into the world and do horrible things. Child sexual assault, torture, sociopathological programming, murder..." Tells me that you are completely out of touch with society and the decisions and trade-offs that parents seeking to raise healthy and well adjusted children must make. |
|
|
|
Lol. I thought the younger generations have more atheists than the old ones. Weird.  I think the survey is skewed because it is worldwide. If you did the survey only in Western Europe, then you'd I assume see much higher rates of atheism (actually Marxism which is a religion) amongst the youth. I forgot to put in the source for the table above. The data table above comes from a large 2009 pew research survey and is US only. The source is here: http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-4-scientists-politics-and-religion/The news article I linked earlier talks about a global survey but I did not have time to track down the source material so I do not know what the totals are worldwide. Edit: Here is a summary of the global survey by country. http://www.rdmag.com/article/2015/12/how-do-scientists-view-religionBelief in a higher power among scientists varied depending on region. Turkey, India and Taiwan boasted the highest percentages, with 85%, 79% and 74% expressing “at least some belief in a Higher Power.” In Italy and Hong Kong, the percentages were 57% and 54%. The U.S. and U.K. were 36% and 35%. French scientists expressed the lowest levels of belief with 24%. |
|
|
|
Just because he wrote that, doesn't mean that everyone who thinks religion is unfalsifiable is a Marxist.
....
Marxism is not just about the claim that religion is an illusion.
No it just means they have some Marxist inclinations. That they agree with Marx on some issues. A true Marxist is someone who agrees with Marx on all or most issues. Thus you iamnotback have some Marxist inclinations but since you disagree with Marx on many other issues you are most definitely not a Marxist  |
|
|
|
The belief that religion is delusion is also Marxists.
Nonsense. That is your strawman Marxism is what Karl Marx wrote and believed. Marx called religion an illusion and the opium of the people. Therefore these views are Marxist. |
|
|
|
Claiming I lied about slavery is simply untrue.
No where did I write that YOU lied about slavery. You simply do not understand at all the point I am making and you going on irrelevant tangential strawman trying to build a case for your religion fetish. The point I am making is that society loves to enamor itself with false accomplishments. You are falling into that mind control trap. Soros has you (and your fellow Jews) deluded. Religion is another delusion, but that is tangential (I don't care which delusion you choose, just that you keep choosing them, because you are weakened by the fact that you've been deluded to believe that nature is kind and caring and that all humans can be equal, and other bullshit). Let's get back to the facts. Perhaps I misunderstood your accusation that I am regurgitating lies? You regurgitating that slavery lie is akin to when you used to regurgitate the man-made global warming lie.
I do not believe that nature is kind. I also do not believe that all humans can be equal. That belief is indeed Marxists. The belief that religion is delusion is also Marxists. To clarify I am not Jewish. I have 0% Jewish ancestry and I don't even have any Jewish friends (this last is due only to a lack of opportunity). I have not converted to Judaism nor have I started the process of such a conversation. I do not live a Torah observant life nor do I even know what is required to do so. However, the advice I gave r0ach immediately above is advice I will eventually follow myself. We all need a healthy collective in an age when unhealthy choices abound. I have yet to decide which one is for me. This discussion is starting to draw this thread away from its intended topic. I will let this post be my final comments on the matter. |
|
|
|
Lol. I thought the younger generations have more atheists than the old ones. Weird. In the Health and Religion thread I talked about some of the possible reasons why the younger generations are more religious. The end result is that you are left with a Machiavellian choice. The only way to fight collectivists is with a collective solution
When you say "The only way to fight collectivists is with a collective solution" you are highlighting the limitations of the individual. While I agree that we all need a community in order to protect our interests what is most important in the long run is the nature of the community we choose to join. For example: Hitler expressed his future plans for the Slavs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_policy_of_Nazi_GermanyAs for the ridiculous hundred million Slavs, we will mould the best of them as we see fit, and we will isolate the rest of them in their own pig-styes; and anyone who talks about cherishing the local inhabitants and civilising them, goes straight off into a concentration camp! Heinrich Himmler, in his memorandum "Reflections on the Treatment of Peoples of Alien Races in the East" dated 25 May 1940, stated that it was in the German interest to restrict non-Germans in the General Government and conquered territories to four-grade elementary school which would only teach them how to write their own name, to count up to 500 and to obey Germans. When I need to concentrate I often find it helpful to play music in a language I do not know. YouTube works well for this. Just today I came across this utterly random yet beautiful singing from a young girl in the Russian army. https://m.youtube.com/watch?list=RDozYao1Mju7A¶ms=OAFIAVgB&v=ozYao1Mju7A&mode=NORMALNazism classified this young lady as "subhuman". I would propose you consider these alternatives that are superior choices to repeating the errors of history. 1) Join a healthy collective. There are numerous conservative Christian groups that form the backbone of local communities. These can help protect like minded individuals when overall society descends into fits of irrationality 2) Be patient and watch as the growing orthodox population transforms Judaism from within. There are large demographic shifts underway. We see that in the higher numbers of young religious scientists and it the growing and soon to be majority of orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jews. The politics of Judaism will change dramatically as the orthodox become the sizeable majority. 3) Convert to Judaism and take over the "enemy" from within.  |
|
|
|
Definitions must be clearly laid out or arguments have no meaning. Without clearly defining slavery arguments about "slave labor" are fundamentally incoherent. Karl Marx's Analysis of Religion http://atheism.about.com/od/philosophyofreligion/a/marx_4.htmAccording to Karl Marx, religion is like other social institutions in that it is dependent upon the material and economic realities in a given society. It has no independent history; instead it is the creature of productive forces. As Marx wrote, “The religious world is but the reflex of the real world.”
According to Marx, religion can only be understood in relation to other social systems and the economic structures of society.
In fact, religion is only dependent upon economics, nothing else — so much so that the actual religious doctrines are almost irrelevant. This is a functionalist interpretation of religion: understanding religion is dependent upon what social purpose religion itself serves, not the content of its beliefs.
Marx’s opinion is that religion is an illusion that provides reasons and excuses to keep society functioning just as it is. Much as capitalism takes our productive labor and alienates us from its value, religion takes our highest ideals and aspirations and alienates us from them, projecting them onto an alien and unknowable being called a god. ... We are in a war for our survival. And so I don't want to hear this bullshit about how noble we are and how we eliminated slavery. Please read also my prior post with quotes from comments from others. White men are in a war now. Married white women who have good sense are on the side of white men in this war. All the noble ideological social justice crap is just Soros manipulation trying to undermine our ability to fight. You regurgitating that slavery lie is akin to when you used to regurgitate the man-made global warming lie. Religion is off topic. You are inventing a strawman afaics to support that you are still mindcontrolled by Soros ostensibly from your time in the academic setting. You seem to really believe that society has made great moral accomplishments. If anything will end slavery, it will be technology not morals. ... Just to correct a few errors above I have said nothing at all about racism on this forum. I have said very little on global warming highlighting on more than one occasion my general lack of interest in that debate. Claiming I lied about slavery is simply untrue. You appear unwilling to actually define slavery. Not doing so may provide a degree of rhetorical flexibility, but it does so at the great cost making any discussion of the topic nonsensical. I would appreciate it if you would not mischaracterise my positions. Humanity has made moral accomplishments over the last several thousand years. Whether one views these as great strides or marginal improvements depends I suppose on your frame of reference. I noticed you did not answer my question above. That is ok I will let the matter rest. For those who agree with Marx's comments on religion l have a follow up query. Communism Killed 94 Million in the 20th century. http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/13/communism-killed-94m-in-20th-centurymore people died as a result of communism than from homicide (58 million) and genocide (30 million) put together. The combined death tolls of WWI (37 million) and WWII (66 million) exceed communism's total by only 9 million Once you choose to embrace a major principle of Marxism (perhaps the core principle) of Marxism what gives you confidence your "solution" will turn out any better? Voltaire [1768], "Response to the author of the book, The Three Impostors"
"My lodging is filled with lizards and rats;
But the architect exists, and anyone who denies it
Is touched with madness under the guise of wisdom.
Consult Zoroaster, and Minos, and Solon,
And the martyr Socrates, and the great Cicero:
They all adored a master, a judge, a father.
This sublime system is necessary to man.
It is the sacred tie that binds society,
The first foundation of holy equity,
The bridle to the wicked, the hope of the just.
If the heavens, stripped of his noble imprint,
Could ever cease to attest to his being,
If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.
Let the wise man announce him and kings fear him.
Kings, if you oppress me, if your eminencies disdain
The tears of the innocent that you cause to flow,
My avenger is in the heavens: learn to tremble.
Such, at least, is the fruit of a useful creed.
But you, faulty logician, whose sad foolishness
Dares to reassure them in the path of crime,
What fruit do you expect to reap from your fine arguments?
Will your children be more obedient to your voice?
Your friends, at time of need, more useful and reliable?
Your wife more honest? and your new renter,
For not believing in God, will he pay you better?
Alas! let's leave intact human belief in fear and hope.
...
I see from afar that era coming, those happy days,
When philosophy, enlightening humanity,
Must lead them in peace to the feet of the common master;
Frightful fanaticism will tremble to appear there:
There will be less dogma with more virtue. "
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
