Insidious Facebook
in [Cobol]
|
Prev: New to COBOL
Next: Correction
From: Alistair on 5 Aug 2010 09:52 On Aug 5, 3:12 am, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > This is one of a half-dozen books that fundamentally altered my outlook on > life Others include ... "Sexual Choices - Why Women Pick the > Men They Do," I have to ask: did it work for you?
From: Howard Brazee on 5 Aug 2010 10:48 On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 21:12:16 -0500, "HeyBub" <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >* Mass movements appeal to people who are dissatisfied with the present by >promising a glorious future. Sometimes a shared someone to blame is sufficient. >* Membership in mass movements is validated by proselytizing. The more >people one can get to join the movement, the greater the sense of >self-validation. Alcoholics do the same thing. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Anonymous on 8 Aug 2010 13:09 In article <4P6dnTrOFM5lysDRnZ2dnUVZ_hydnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >Alistair wrote: >> On Aug 5, 3:12 am, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >> >>> This is one of a half-dozen books that fundamentally altered my >>> outlook on life Others include ... "Sexual Choices - Why Women Pick >>> the >>> Men They Do," >> >> I have to ask: did it work for you? > >Well, sure. > >The whole book looks like a re-work of a master's thesis. But the most >interesting part was how the author (a woman) put the whole business on a >biological, evolutionary, basis. She starts with two unprovable axioms and >from these develops a cogent whole. The two axioms are: > >* Everybody has a genetic mandate to reproduce, to spread their genes, and >* It is the woman that does the choosing. Leaving aside that the first axiom is considered by biologists to be considered the raison d'etre for any given individual ('an individual exists in order to attempt to ascertain continuation of the species') the second axiom appears to deny the existence of sexual coercion. > >For example, "Dirty old men" don't select young chicks, it's the young >chicks that select the dirty old men! 'Soldiers do not select the females of the conquered, it's the females of the conquered that select the soldiers!'... does anyone else have a bit of difficulty reading that and keeping a straight face? DD
From: HeyBub on 8 Aug 2010 17:50 docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: > In article <4P6dnTrOFM5lysDRnZ2dnUVZ_hydnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, > HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >> Alistair wrote: >>> On Aug 5, 3:12 am, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> This is one of a half-dozen books that fundamentally altered my >>>> outlook on life Others include ... "Sexual Choices - Why Women >>>> Pick the >>>> Men They Do," >>> >>> I have to ask: did it work for you? >> >> Well, sure. >> >> The whole book looks like a re-work of a master's thesis. But the >> most interesting part was how the author (a woman) put the whole >> business on a biological, evolutionary, basis. She starts with two >> unprovable axioms and from these develops a cogent whole. The two >> axioms are: >> >> * Everybody has a genetic mandate to reproduce, to spread their >> genes, and >> * It is the woman that does the choosing. > > Leaving aside that the first axiom is considered by biologists to be > considered the raison d'etre for any given individual ('an individual > exists in order to attempt to ascertain continuation of the species') > the second axiom appears to deny the existence of sexual coercion. > The fact that biologists consider "mandate to reproduce" as an emotional argument renders it, like the axiom, unprovable. >> >> For example, "Dirty old men" don't select young chicks, it's the >> young chicks that select the dirty old men! > > 'Soldiers do not select the females of the conquered, it's the > females of the conquered that select the soldiers!'... does anyone > else have a bit of difficulty reading that and keeping a straight > face? > Sigh. Neither I nor the author felt it was necessary to even mention the exceptions of rapes, child brides, arranged marriages, or virgin births.
From: Anonymous on 8 Aug 2010 21:52
In article <pb2dnUQ0h64lu8LRnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >> In article <4P6dnTrOFM5lysDRnZ2dnUVZ_hydnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, >> HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >>> Alistair wrote: >>>> On Aug 5, 3:12 am, "HeyBub" <hey...(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> This is one of a half-dozen books that fundamentally altered my >>>>> outlook on life Others include ... "Sexual Choices - Why Women >>>>> Pick the >>>>> Men They Do," >>>> >>>> I have to ask: did it work for you? >>> >>> Well, sure. >>> >>> The whole book looks like a re-work of a master's thesis. But the >>> most interesting part was how the author (a woman) put the whole >>> business on a biological, evolutionary, basis. She starts with two >>> unprovable axioms and from these develops a cogent whole. The two >>> axioms are: >>> >>> * Everybody has a genetic mandate to reproduce, to spread their >>> genes, and >>> * It is the woman that does the choosing. >> >> Leaving aside that the first axiom is considered by biologists to be >> considered the raison d'etre for any given individual ('an individual >> exists in order to attempt to ascertain continuation of the species') >> the second axiom appears to deny the existence of sexual coercion. >> > >The fact that biologists consider "mandate to reproduce" as an emotional >argument renders it, like the axiom, unprovable. Deermining if a species has 'life' and 'reproduces' appears to be a bit more simple than attributing to said species 'emotions'; this might be a reason that I did not mention emotions at all and let the biologists define their own discipline. > >>> >>> For example, "Dirty old men" don't select young chicks, it's the >>> young chicks that select the dirty old men! >> >> 'Soldiers do not select the females of the conquered, it's the >> females of the conquered that select the soldiers!'... does anyone >> else have a bit of difficulty reading that and keeping a straight >> face? >> > >Sigh. Neither I nor the author felt it was necessary to even mention the >exceptions of rapes, child brides, arranged marriages, or virgin births. That which some see as 'not necessary to even mention' is a matter of 'day to day life' for billions of humans... but what do *their* experiences have to do with keeping a good schedule on the talk-show and book-hawking trails? Perhaps you *and* the author believe that the manners and customs of your own small islands are those of the rest of the world... others might believe elsewise. DD |