Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Infinityforce]

1. Plenty of other animals are monogamous, and stay with one partner for their whole life.
2. "Pervert" just means "a person whose sexual behavior is regarded as abnormal and unacceptable." As such, I would challenge its unironic use in any situation, save bestiality and rape. (And I'm not even sure about the former.)

Are you referring to me?

1. Humans are unique in that they stay together and rear their children in families for longer, and with infinitely more attention than any other animal. How many animals mate, and stay with their mate to do parenting for 20+ years until the children are fully grown? Humans do.
2. I meant it literally. Aleister Crowley dubbed himself "the wickedest man alive" and "the great beast" and was known to haunt prostitutes. He probably did much more sick, occult shit which can only be termed as perversion. He founded the popularity of "eroto-comatose lucidity" in the western world. It was known for thousands of years by ancient sages prior. Crowley also probably indulged in paedophilia, cannibalism etc. so, is that perverted enough?

[Antioch]

Something is noticed is that the word "cis" seems to be very much on it's way of becoming a derogatory term.

At least on the internet.

[Edmus]

Much less so than trans with a y plonked on is in reality imo.

What social media circles do you observe this in?
Is it direct or reported?

edit: Or online circles in general(rather than just social media, though that definition is pretty blurry.)

[spümpkin]

1. Plenty of other animals are monogamous, and stay with one partner for their whole life.
2. "Pervert" just means "a person whose sexual behavior is regarded as abnormal and unacceptable." As such, I would challenge its unironic use in any situation, save bestiality and rape. (And I'm not even sure about the former.)

1. Humans are unique in that they stay together and rear their children in families for longer, and with infinitely more attention than any other animal. How many animals mate, and stay with their mate to do parenting for 20+ years until the children are fully grown? Humans do.

Well, that's mainly due to the fact that humans live longer than a lot of other animals

But yeah, plenty of species raise children monogamously.

[Rolepgeek]

1. Plenty of other animals are monogamous, and stay with one partner for their whole life.
2. "Pervert" just means "a person whose sexual behavior is regarded as abnormal and unacceptable." As such, I would challenge its unironic use in any situation, save bestiality and rape. (And I'm not even sure about the former.)

Are you referring to me?

1. Humans are unique in that they stay together and rear their children in families for longer, and with infinitely more attention than any other animal. How many animals mate, and stay with their mate to do parenting for 20+ years until the children are fully grown? Humans do.
2. I meant it literally. Aleister Crowley dubbed himself "the wickedest man alive" and "the great beast" and was known to haunt prostitutes. He probably did much more sick, occult shit which can only be termed as perversion. He founded the popularity of "eroto-comatose lucidity" in the western world. It was known for thousands of years by ancient sages prior. Crowley also probably indulged in paedophilia, cannibalism etc. so, is that perverted enough?

1. How many animals take 20 goddamned years to grow to adulthood? A third or more or their typical lifespan? Infinitely more attention is a whole nother matter which has it's own issues...
2. "Probably did some perverted stuff" "Probably indulged in perverted stuff" Mm-hmm. That....ain't great for evidence, man.

[Catmeat]

Are we having an orgy in here?

[Cthulhu]

Posting to wa--uh.

Well.

Nevermind.

[Infinityforce]

1.
The real factor is that a Human male and female will parent a child with more attention, care and understanding than any other animal, and for relatively longer. Not just spending time together, but performing parenting tasks. Humans arguably do the most parenting of any other animal.
You learn everything from your parents. Most animals learn the basics only, and learn the rest from the wild. That's because Humans are good at parenting, and have been selected by evolution to be great parents to give their children the best advantage. When two people make love (in nature), ultimately, it's to become great parents and raise a child from ignorance to self-sufficiency (which is more difficult for humans, because they learn SO much more than any animal). Think about it like science: We build on the discoveries of previous scientists. Similarly, we learn and grow based on the tuition of our parents. This is an evolutionary strategy to confer many benefits to human beings. This is how we are able to know so much (compared to animals).
For Humans, parenting is in-depth and a long term commitment (for the species as a whole, not only individuals) and Humans are good at parenting.
Human beings apply infinitely more care (ATTENTION) to their offspring than any animal because:
-humans are more mentally complex than animals. When they look after their offspring, they do it smarter than an animal.
-humans are more emotionally and socially complex than animals. They have a complex social system, they do it with more emotional depth.
-has to teach them language and pretty much everything about the world (animals can't do this because they don't understand the world)
-teaches them specialised skills like writing, numeracy, sports, social etiquette (complex skills can't even be understood by animals)
-feeds, clothes them. worries about their diet, skin, friends, education, finances and love life. (most animals do not stay in contact with their children into old age, for example)

2.
Crowley was definitely a pervert by any definition

[TempAcc]

Ehhh, honestly, there isn't much evidence that crowley did anything but market himself to rich europeans and americans with interests in the occult (which fetched him fair sums of money) and take part in the ocasional orgy. Crowley did his best to ride on the occult wave of his time (he lived in a time a whole lot of religions and cults popped into existence) and got tons of free notoriety from it. There's no tangible proof anywhere of him actualy doing much of what he said he did (or what people accused him of doing), he's more of a pop culture figure than anything, unless of course you're willing to take paranormal and occult centered websites seriously :v

He did what many occultists of his time were doing, IE taking myths and legends (specially egyptian) and mashing it with modern culture to create cults through which he could gain influence and power over others, he just did it better than others. He was certainly good at marketing, as well.

[Starver]

1. Plenty of other animals are monogamous, and stay with one partner for their whole life.

Not so much as it is often said, or as absolutely as implied...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogamy#Varieties_of_monogamy_in_biology

I've seen somewhere that 90% of bird species might be "socially monogamous" (doesn't mean the eggs are his, necessarily, but they're staying together and tending the nest "for the sake of the chicks", and the 'famously monogamous' emperor penguins often break their pair-bonds and remake them with another between broods) and maybe just 3% of mammals, likewise.
Female-only nurturers (and entirely non-nurturing creatures) tend not to have any reproductive loyalty at all, not even taking into account mass spawners who then die from the effort, mothers who allow their own body to be consumed by their young and/or sexual canibalism.

Look to the Anglerfish, though...  Inverted sexual dimorphism and enforced parasitism by the male means that lifetime monogamy (where it is not polyandry) is enforced.

The natural world is truly diverse, is it not?

ETA: "cis" tends to be used as an insult by reactionaries, see also the oscillating fortunes and intentions behind "gay" and the battles between the MRAs and the SJWs whose primary combatants proudly declare themselves as one and denigrate everybody not totally with them as being the inglorious other...

Also, same ETA: killer wales have a very human-like/human-scale life-cycle, including care of young by parents and grandparents and aunties (not sure about uncles...)

[Rolepgeek]

1.
The real factor is that a Human male and female will parent a child with more attention, care and understanding than any other animal, and for relatively longer. Not just spending time together, but performing parenting tasks. Humans arguably do the most parenting of any other animal.
You learn everything from your parents. Most animals learn the basics only, and learn the rest from the wild. That's because Humans are good at parenting, and have been selected by evolution to be great parents to give their children the best advantage. When two people make love (in nature), ultimately, it's to become great parents and raise a child from ignorance to self-sufficiency (which is more difficult for humans, because they learn SO much more than any animal). Think about it like science: We build on the discoveries of previous scientists. Similarly, we learn and grow based on the tuition of our parents. This is an evolutionary strategy to confer many benefits to human beings. This is how we are able to know so much (compared to animals).
For Humans, parenting is in-depth and a long term commitment (for the species as a whole, not only individuals) and Humans are good at parenting.
Human beings apply infinitely more care (ATTENTION) to their offspring than any animal because:
-humans are more mentally complex than animals. When they look after their offspring, they do it smarter than an animal.
-humans are more emotionally and socially complex than animals. They have a complex social system, they do it with more emotional depth.
-has to teach them language and pretty much everything about the world (animals can't do this because they don't understand the world)
-teaches them specialised skills like writing, numeracy, sports, social etiquette (complex skills can't even be understood by animals)
-feeds, clothes them. worries about their diet, skin, friends, education, finances and love life. (most animals do not stay in contact with their children into old age, for example)

So first off, do you mean all animals? Because I'm comparing humans to the smartest non-humans. Like elephants. Or dolphins, or chimps, or orcas, or crows, or what-have-you. Second, mentally complex=/= smarter. Chimps beat humans in terms of being able to figure out optimal game-theoretic strategies and use them. Humans overthink it. We apply biases and prejudices and ideas of how we'll stand socially to everything.
Third, while we quite easily have the most complex social behaviors, that's not least because we have the largest groups. That doesn't automatically translate to more emotional depth. How would you measure that, anyway? Expose an elephant to pictures of mutilated elephants and see whether they try and trample you?
Fourth, AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Sorry no that's a bad argument strategy (the laughing bit). But seriously, that's false, first off (humans are quite capable of learning without a parent, they just do worse off with most other bits like being able to get enough food 'n shit), saying language automatically makes us more family-oriented is a really odd way to put it, and family orientation (at all) rather than tribal orientation is a really recent thing, like 10,000 years or so at the very most, and still isn't always the case.
Fifth, animals have quite complex skills. Oh, I'm sorry, you don't consider hunting a complex skill? Or pack dynamics? Codifying everything doesn't make us smarter.
Sixth, animals do in fact worry about their offspring when they are animals that care about their offspring, and particularly when they are herd/pack animals like humans. Elephants hold goddamn funerals. Saying that humans are smarter because we have finances is meaningless. This also doesn't apply to all humans, even.
Seventh, it takes a village to raise a child, and before agriculture, the whole tribe helped. Not just family. Everyone helped with the kids. Just like other species. Humans are unique because of tool use+high intelligence, not unique for high intelligence alone. Elephants and dolphins are smart, they just lack hands.

[Infinityforce]

Animals are NO WHERE near as self-aware, rational, understanding, perceptive, insightful, creative, organised, coherent, calculating, restrained, detached, considerate, reflective, concentrated, focused, developed, mentally or emotionally compared to Humans.

[TempAcc]

And edible, dont forget edible.
_{Not by much though.}

[Flying Dice]

"if you're not part of [group] you don't know what real prejudice or pain is."

tbh the problem is that this is actually true if you look at the amount of people saying that women should be "flattered" because of catcalling and that sexual harassment "doesn't happen that often" etc.

a lot of people will just dismiss or minimalise racism or sexism because it never happens to them, and there's a big difference from "a few people are mean to me sometimes :c" and "random strangers call me a slut on a busy street regularly"

also it's just naive to pretend that cis white middle-class dudes experience prejudice to the same extent as basically any other group

Spoiler: Oh hello there // This is not happy, don't bother opening if you're not miauw. (click to show/hide)

Thanks for proving the point, though. Assume that only the suffering of people you deem to be "real victims" matters, then proceed to marginalize and trivialize everyone else. Also assume that only suffering caused by the "real problems" is important and that everything else doesn't exist or doesn't matter. Work hard to make people otherize each other based on your hierarchy of victimhood. Assume that empathy and sympathy don't exist and that people can only identify and want to resolve problems which personally affect them. Call everyone who disagrees with your highly specific and arrogant worldview a bigot because you can't comprehend people who want to try to address all social ills instead of making their own lives better while pushing everyone else down the ladder or blindly kowtowing to your pressure to allow you to do so.

Thanks for helping the wealthy and powerful continue to divide us and prevent us from ever tackling the underlying economic injustices that foment so many social problems and so much hatred. Thanks for pushing hate and distrust and dehumanization instead of understanding and cooperation. Thanks for trying to start shit in this thread.

If you want to do this again, you can PM me. I won't promise I won't quote you if you try to bait me and go crying for public sympathy again later, though.

Thanks for proving the point, though.

at no point did i say any of that so lol

Assume that only the suffering of people you deem to be "real victims" matters

nope

proceed to marginalize and trivialize everyone else

nope

only suffering caused by the "real problems" is important and that everything else doesn't exist or doesn't matter

nope

Work hard to make people otherize each other based on your hierarchy of victimhood

nope

there's a big difference from "a few people are mean to me sometimes :c" and "random strangers call me a slut on a busy street regularly"

You have clear classes of "real victims" and trivialize all other suffering as "lel someone said something mean to me".

Assume that empathy and sympathy don't exist and that people can only identify and want to resolve problems which personally affect them

nope

a lot of people will just dismiss or minimalise racism or sexism because it never happens to them

You made two generalizations here: that people outside your designated victim groups cannot be discriminated against on the basis of race or sex (which is blatantly and provably false, and that people who do not suffer from a given type of discrimination will not care about it.

Call everyone who disagrees with your highly specific and arrogant worldview a bigot

nope
Semi-fair, but the is the nigh-universal cop-out employed by people making the same arguments: see: all Brexit voters are cast as racist hicks, anyone who doesn't support Clinton is a sexist, &c. This is hands-down the favored argument of regressives, that anyone who doesn't blindly adhere to their specific ideological strain is a hateful enemy of progress.

can't comprehend people who want to try to address all social ills instead of making their own lives better while pushing everyone else down the ladder

nope

also it's just naive to pretend that cis white middle-class dudes experience prejudice to the same extent as basically any other group

a lot of people will just dismiss or minimalise racism or sexism because it never happens to them

See above re: the dual fallacy of group-limited victimhood and lack of empathy for those different from oneself suffering because of something encompassed by those differences. You tacitly assume that a person who does not suffer from a particular injustice will not care about it.

blindly kowtowing to your pressure to allow you to do so

nope
That is the conclusion most readily drawn from the previously mentioned assumption. If people do not care about problems which do not directly and personally affect them, why do those who are affected care? Obviously, personal gain. Ergo, if someone operating under your worldview is opposed to a type of prejudice, it it solely because they stand to improve their condition by doing so. You willingly reject even the possibility that someone could be opposed to hatred or prejudice because it is ethically wrong, socially destructive, &c. No, people only care about things if they gain something concrete from caring.

i could add onto why most of these things are bullshit or the exact thing you're doing, but why would i? your post is just a bunch of shit i didn't say and some random insults.

and why should i have to pm when calling people out on their bullshit?

also i guess i should have a line here passive-aggressively "thanking" you for things you didnt do but i cant really bring up the effort so meh

In order: It was a description of the ideas enshrined in your ideology and of the consequences of attempting to force it upon the world.

Because it's common courtesy to not shit up threads with unrelated arguments (or try to start fights because you don't like someone).

I understand that nuance isn't really your thing, since you didn't understand that that post was not literally quoting you, so don't sweat it.

I could say something involved about the irony of sheltered white euro-teens trying to dictate to people outside their cultural hugbox about issues which have background and history they haven't studied being taken seriously in a post-colonial world, but that's a whole different discussion.

[TheBiggerFish]

@Flying Dice:It's not that someone who hasn't experienced an injustice can't care about it, it's that having not experienced that injustice, it's harder to feel the depth of it.

'least to me.

I, as an abstract point, feel that racism is a bad thing.

However, I couldn't claim to understand what it's like to be discriminated against racially, because I haven't been discriminated against racially.

It's a bit more nuanced than 'only certain people can be harmed by things'.  There's maybe a higher burden of proof, but it is possible to be discriminated against even as the dominant cultural archetype.  It's just that it actually does happen less, as a fraction.