According to Robert Sapolsky, human free will does not exist

[pood]

Jaryn, you must have misread or didn't read at all. You probably saw the Ten Commandments written and assumed that's what the book is about. Read again.

While the moral code, the Ten Commandments, our standards of right and wrong will be completely extirpated, all premarital relations, adultery, and divorce will be a thing of the past, changing the entire landscape of family relationships. Where did you ever hear anything so fantastic or paradoxical? And aren’t you jumping to the conclusion that this is against all human nature?

Yes, I know, peacegirl, and in the new world it will be mathematically impossible for married couples to desire to share the same bed, and all three (!) forms of homosexuality will pass by the wayside in due course.

You see, I did read the book.

That’s your problem. Not people who don’t read it, but people who DO.

 

[pood]

Hey, @peacegirl, what were the three categories of “homo-sexuals” that your father decreed would “pass by the wayside in due course”?

I believe they were inherited (i), glandular (g) and and environmental (e), though I could be somewhat off, because I haven’t studied the “data” in a long time.

Remember the Page 2,000 party my Aunt Flo threw for you at FF? We had to segregate the squabbling fags!

 

[peacegirl]

Jaryn, you must have misread or didn't read at all. You probably saw the Ten Commandments written and assumed that's what the book is about. Read again.

While the moral code, the Ten Commandments, our standards of right and wrong will be completely extirpated, all premarital relations, adultery, and divorce will be a thing of the past, changing the entire landscape of family relationships. Where did you ever hear anything so fantastic or paradoxical? And aren’t you jumping to the conclusion that this is against all human nature?

Yes, I know, peacegirl, and in the new world it will be mathematically impossible for married couples to desire to share the same bed, and all three (!) forms of homosexuality will pass by the wayside in due course.

You see, I did read the book.

That’s your problem. Not people who don’t read it, but people who DO.

You won't win Pood. You will not take excerpts out of context and purposely misconstrue what he wrote (he never said homosexuality was wrong), which you did in freethought-forum, just to create lulz. It ain't gonna happen again. You and a few others made the book unrecognizable, which is a problem if people don't understand or don't care to understand the truth. Pood, you understood nothing after having more than enough time, but you were too busy doing what the author urged the reader NOT to do. The bottom line is you haven't proved that man has any kind of free will, compatibilist or libertarian. Indeterminism is not the opposite of determinism either. You just can't handle that man's will is not free, never was, and never will be, no matter what you tell yourself. And btw, if determinism is proven true, free will is proven false, BY DEFINITION. If you keep this up, I will report you to the moderators. This kind of misrepresentation should not be allowed in a serious forum.

PREFACE:

In view of the fact that the first two chapters must be read thoroughly before any other reading is done, I hope that the table of contents will not tempt you to read in a desultory manner. Should you jump ahead and read other chapters, this work could appear like a fairytale; otherwise, the statement that truth is stranger than fiction will be amply verified by the scientific world, or by yourself, if you are able to follow the reasoning of mathematical relations. If you find the first two chapters difficult, don’t be discouraged because what follows will help you understand these principles much better the second time around. This book was written in a dialogue format to anticipate the questions the reader may have and to make these fairly difficult concepts as reader-friendly as possible. There is a certain amount of repetition for the purpose of reinforcing important points and tying together the extension in a cohesive manner, but despite all efforts to make this work easier to understand, it is still deep and will require that you go at a snail’s pace, reading many things over and over again. When you have finally grasped the full significance and magnitude of this work and further realize there has never been and will never be another like it because of what is undeniably achieved, you will cherish it throughout your entire life.

 

[Jarhyn]

Oh lordy, that's fucking vile. Seriously, what is it with these cranks and hating the gays?

It sounds like a fucking miserable world to live in, or one controlled by Nazi douchebags.

Peacegirl is just another Nazi, I guess. Sad, but predictable?

Like, the world I would build is pretty much the inverse of hers: where people have a wide variety of ways they can choose to be, or the chance to find a newer way still to be, eschewing all the past as is the tendency of some. It would be a world where people to cease caring as much about who are "men" and "women" and let themselves accept the feelings they have for those around them within the bounds of consent. It's a world where people find a place to love the things they live and find joy in those things, we will forever see the improved success that comes from having gay family members.

 

[steve_bank]

Brave New World. Genetic engineerng, drugs, and no exclusive relationships. Similar theme in Logan’s Run.

In Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, genetic engineering, especially the "Bokanovsky Process" (cloning and splitting embryos) and chemical conditioning, creates humans pre-assigned to specific social castes (Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Epsilon) for social stability, eliminating individuality and emotional depth for a seemingly utopian, yet controlled, society where everyone fits their predetermined role, a cautionary tale echoing modern debates around CRISPR and designer babies.

characters are conditioned to see monogamy as shameful and promiscuity as a duty, epitomized by the phrase "everyone belongs to everyone else," creating a shallow, passionless society devoid of true intimacy or lasting relationships.

He wrote about it in Doors Of Perception. It is online.

Peacegirl

I read trough the initial link you posted at the start. He elevates himself to the likes of Aristotle and Plato. A lot of the book is proclaiming his imagined profundity. Self aggrandizing.

I am well read enough to see the book as a somewhat erratic mix of different sources. And pseudoscience. Pseudoscience was an is still popular.

I am not asking you to quote the book, I an asking you to describe in your own words how it applies to one’s daily life and the world with benefits. Specifics.

I do not think you can.

Did your father use psychoactive substances? No shame to that in the day not uncommon in certain circles.


Sherlock Holmes used cocaine for boredom.

Some are naturally ‘high’.

Salvador Dalí famously claimed,
"I don't do drugs. I am drugs," a statement he made to emphasize that his hallucinatory, surrealist art was derived from his own mind rather than external substances. While his work was deeply psychedelic in nature, evidence suggests he avoided the conventional drug culture of his time.

Before the 60s pot was common in music, art, and wrters.

Carl Sagan he used pot for inspiration.


What were your father’s inspirations and sources? A list of references?

 

[steve_bank]

Is there some Plato in the book? I thought Plato advocated no sexual norms for the governing elite. Maybe I am wrong.

Plato’s views on sexuality and government are intricately linked, with his political philosophy aiming to control sexual behavior to ensure the stability and virtue of the state (the
polis). In The Republic and The Laws, he argues that unregulated sexuality is a distraction from higher, intellectual pursuits and poses a danger to social order.
Key Aspects of Plato's Sexual Norms and Government:

Communal Living and Eugenics (The Republic): In his ideal city, Plato proposes abolishing the private family for the guardian class (rulers and soldiers). Instead, they live communally, sharing spouses and children. This "government-run dating service" would use a "rigged lottery" to ensure that the best men breed with the best women, producing superior offspring.

Reproductive Focus: In The Laws, Plato shifts toward more conventional morality, calling homosexual intercourse "unnatural" and advocating for regulations that restrict sexual activity to procreative, heterosexual marriage.

"Platonic Love": While often associated with the Symposium, Plato actually emphasizes rising above physical desire (both heterosexual and homosexual) to focus on intellectual love, or the contemplation of beauty itself.

Gender Equality in Governance: To prioritize the state, Plato argues in The Republic that women should be educated alongside men and participate equally in governance and military defense, as he believed that sex is irrelevant to one's ability to rule.

Control of Passion: For Plato, sexual desire is a form of disorder that must be mastered by reason to prevent the decay of the soul and the city.

 

[peacegirl]

Oh lordy, that's fucking vile. Seriously, what is it with these cranks and hating the gays?

Are you that dense, or are you pretending to be?

It sounds like a fucking miserable world to live in, or one controlled by Nazi douchebags.

Peacegirl is just another Nazi, I guess. Sad, but predictable?

What the hell are you talking about? This knowledge is the opposite of force.

Like, the world I would build is pretty much the inverse of hers: where people have a wide variety of ways they can choose to be, or the chance to find a newer way still to be, eschewing all the past as is the tendency of some. It would be a world where people to cease caring as much about who are "men" and "women" and let themselves accept the feelings they have for those around them within the bounds of consent.

What does "without the bounds of consent" even mean?

It's a world where people find a place to love the things they live and find joy in those things, we will forever see the improved success that comes from having gay family members.

You and Pood belong together. You are going along with a guy who purposely twisted the author's words for cheap laughter, but you don't seem to care. You just want to be right at all costs.

 

[peacegirl]

Is there some Plato in the book? I thought Plato advocated no sexual norms for the governing elite. Maybe I am wrong.

Plato’s views on sexuality and government are intricately linked, with his political philosophy aiming to control sexual behavior to ensure the stability and virtue of the state (the
polis). In The Republic and The Laws, he argues that unregulated sexuality is a distraction from higher, intellectual pursuits and poses a danger to social order.
Key Aspects of Plato's Sexual Norms and Government:

Communal Living and Eugenics (The Republic): In his ideal city, Plato proposes abolishing the private family for the guardian class (rulers and soldiers). Instead, they live communally, sharing spouses and children. This "government-run dating service" would use a "rigged lottery" to ensure that the best men breed with the best women, producing superior offspring.

Reproductive Focus: In The Laws, Plato shifts toward more conventional morality, calling homosexual intercourse "unnatural" and advocating for regulations that restrict sexual activity to procreative, heterosexual marriage.

"Platonic Love": While often associated with the Symposium, Plato actually emphasizes rising above physical desire (both heterosexual and homosexual) to focus on intellectual love, or the contemplation of beauty itself.

Gender Equality in Governance: To prioritize the state, Plato argues in The Republic that women should be educated alongside men and participate equally in governance and military defense, as he believed that sex is irrelevant to one's ability to rule.

Control of Passion: For Plato, sexual desire is a form of disorder that must be mastered by reason to prevent the decay of the soul and the city.

He disagreed with Plato.

Many years ago, the philosopher Plato dreamed of Utopia, but the only manner in which he thought this could be accomplished was by removing the children from their parents at birth to prevent the passing along of ignorance from generation to generation. He began with a gigantic assumption that his men of Gold — he and others like him who received the necessary education and had the ability to pass through the necessary steps — had already possession of what the end result should be and only needed the means to this end, such as a system to develop these men of Gold, who would then remove the children from their parents for the purpose of controlling the environment, completely controlling what these little ones would experience. It never dawned on Plato and other philosophers that it was mathematically impossible for them to see the end result, for this included the removal of themselves and their ideas, which were constantly judging what was right for others. But what made matters still worse (not in reality, of course, since everything was necessary), what made matters more difficult to straighten out, was the fact that these men of Gold justified the veracity of their wisdom by calling themselves men of Gold.

 

[pood]

Jaryn, you must have misread or didn't read at all. You probably saw the Ten Commandments written and assumed that's what the book is about. Read again.

While the moral code, the Ten Commandments, our standards of right and wrong will be completely extirpated, all premarital relations, adultery, and divorce will be a thing of the past, changing the entire landscape of family relationships. Where did you ever hear anything so fantastic or paradoxical? And aren’t you jumping to the conclusion that this is against all human nature?

Yes, I know, peacegirl, and in the new world it will be mathematically impossible for married couples to desire to share the same bed, and all three (!) forms of homosexuality will pass by the wayside in due course.

You see, I did read the book.

That’s your problem. Not people who don’t read it, but people who DO.

You won't win Pood. You will not take excerpts out of context and purposely misconstrue what he wrote (he never said homosexuality was wrong), which you did in freethought-forum, just to create lulz. It ain't gonna happen again. You and a few others made the book unrecognizable, which is a problem if people don't understand or don't care to understand the truth. Pood, you understood nothing after having more than enough time, but you were too busy doing what the author urged the reader NOT to do. The bottom line is you haven't proved that man has any kind of free will, compatibilist or libertarian. Indeterminism is not the opposite of determinism either. You just can't handle that man's will is not free, never was, and never will be, no matter what you tell yourself. And btw, if determinism is proven true, free will is proven false, BY DEFINITION. If you keep this up, I will report you to the moderators. This kind of misrepresentation should not be allowed in a serious forum.

PREFACE:

In view of the fact that the first two chapters must be read thoroughly before any other reading is done, I hope that the table of contents will not tempt you to read in a desultory manner. Should you jump ahead and read other chapters, this work could appear like a fairytale; otherwise, the statement that truth is stranger than fiction will be amply verified by the scientific world, or by yourself, if you are able to follow the reasoning of mathematical relations. If you find the first two chapters difficult, don’t be discouraged because what follows will help you understand these principles much better the second time around. This book was written in a dialogue format to anticipate the questions the reader may have and to make these fairly difficult concepts as reader-friendly as possible. There is a certain amount of repetition for the purpose of reinforcing important points and tying together the extension in a cohesive manner, but despite all efforts to make this work easier to understand, it is still deep and will require that you go at a snail’s pace, reading many things over and over again. When you have finally grasped the full significance and magnitude of this work and further realize there has never been and will never be another like it because of what is undeniably achieved, you will cherish it throughout your entire life.

You father wrote that there were three kinds of homosexuality and all would vanish in his and your ugly new world. He specifically wrote that it will become “mathematically impossible” for husbands and wives to desire to share the same bed, though you later rewrote that passage to make it sound less ludicrous. He said that boys and girls would run around scantily clad and fall in love with each other’s sex organs (!) and would get hitched for life to the first sex organs they fell in love with.

Do you deny he wrote these things? The record of these writings is all over FF and can be easily found.

Yes, peacegirl, I read the book.

It sucks.

 

[peacegirl]

Jaryn, you must have misread or didn't read at all. You probably saw the Ten Commandments written and assumed that's what the book is about. Read again.

While the moral code, the Ten Commandments, our standards of right and wrong will be completely extirpated, all premarital relations, adultery, and divorce will be a thing of the past, changing the entire landscape of family relationships. Where did you ever hear anything so fantastic or paradoxical? And aren’t you jumping to the conclusion that this is against all human nature?

Yes, I know, peacegirl, and in the new world it will be mathematically impossible for married couples to desire to share the same bed, and all three (!) forms of homosexuality will pass by the wayside in due course.

You see, I did read the book.

That’s your problem. Not people who don’t read it, but people who DO.

You won't win Pood. You will not take excerpts out of context and purposely misconstrue what he wrote (he never said homosexuality was wrong), which you did in freethought-forum, just to create lulz. It ain't gonna happen again. You and a few others made the book unrecognizable, which is a problem if people don't understand or don't care to understand the truth. Pood, you understood nothing after having more than enough time, but you were too busy doing what the author urged the reader NOT to do. The bottom line is you haven't proved that man has any kind of free will, compatibilist or libertarian. Indeterminism is not the opposite of determinism either. You just can't handle that man's will is not free, never was, and never will be, no matter what you tell yourself. And btw, if determinism is proven true, free will is proven false, BY DEFINITION. If you keep this up, I will report you to the moderators. This kind of misrepresentation should not be allowed in a serious forum.

PREFACE:

In view of the fact that the first two chapters must be read thoroughly before any other reading is done, I hope that the table of contents will not tempt you to read in a desultory manner. Should you jump ahead and read other chapters, this work could appear like a fairytale; otherwise, the statement that truth is stranger than fiction will be amply verified by the scientific world, or by yourself, if you are able to follow the reasoning of mathematical relations. If you find the first two chapters difficult, don’t be discouraged because what follows will help you understand these principles much better the second time around. This book was written in a dialogue format to anticipate the questions the reader may have and to make these fairly difficult concepts as reader-friendly as possible. There is a certain amount of repetition for the purpose of reinforcing important points and tying together the extension in a cohesive manner, but despite all efforts to make this work easier to understand, it is still deep and will require that you go at a snail’s pace, reading many things over and over again. When you have finally grasped the full significance and magnitude of this work and further realize there has never been and will never be another like it because of what is undeniably achieved, you will cherish it throughout your entire life.

You father wrote that there were three kinds of homosexuality and all would vanish in his and your ugly new world. He specifically wrote that it will become “mathematically impossible” for husbands and wives to desire to share the same bed, though you later rewrote that passage to make it sound less ludicrous. He said that boys and girls would run around scantily clad and fall in love with each other’s sex organs (!) and would get hitched for life to the first sex organs they fell in love with.

Do you deny he wrote these things? The record of these writings is all over FF and can be easily found.

Yes, peacegirl, I read the book.

It sucks.

You’re really out the door, Pood, and I think deep down you know it. You are continuing to grasp at anything you can to attribute a false meaning to what he said. It is so obvious to me that you don’t like his claim about the eyes, which started your crusade against him. I had no chance in that forum when people ran with the lies. It doesn’t matter though. The truth will reign!!

 

[pood]

Jaryn, you must have misread or didn't read at all. You probably saw the Ten Commandments written and assumed that's what the book is about. Read again.

While the moral code, the Ten Commandments, our standards of right and wrong will be completely extirpated, all premarital relations, adultery, and divorce will be a thing of the past, changing the entire landscape of family relationships. Where did you ever hear anything so fantastic or paradoxical? And aren’t you jumping to the conclusion that this is against all human nature?

Yes, I know, peacegirl, and in the new world it will be mathematically impossible for married couples to desire to share the same bed, and all three (!) forms of homosexuality will pass by the wayside in due course.

You see, I did read the book.

That’s your problem. Not people who don’t read it, but people who DO.

You won't win Pood. You will not take excerpts out of context and purposely misconstrue what he wrote (he never said homosexuality was wrong), which you did in freethought-forum, just to create lulz. It ain't gonna happen again. You and a few others made the book unrecognizable, which is a problem if people don't understand or don't care to understand the truth. Pood, you understood nothing after having more than enough time, but you were too busy doing what the author urged the reader NOT to do. The bottom line is you haven't proved that man has any kind of free will, compatibilist or libertarian. Indeterminism is not the opposite of determinism either. You just can't handle that man's will is not free, never was, and never will be, no matter what you tell yourself. And btw, if determinism is proven true, free will is proven false, BY DEFINITION. If you keep this up, I will report you to the moderators. This kind of misrepresentation should not be allowed in a serious forum.

PREFACE:

In view of the fact that the first two chapters must be read thoroughly before any other reading is done, I hope that the table of contents will not tempt you to read in a desultory manner. Should you jump ahead and read other chapters, this work could appear like a fairytale; otherwise, the statement that truth is stranger than fiction will be amply verified by the scientific world, or by yourself, if you are able to follow the reasoning of mathematical relations. If you find the first two chapters difficult, don’t be discouraged because what follows will help you understand these principles much better the second time around. This book was written in a dialogue format to anticipate the questions the reader may have and to make these fairly difficult concepts as reader-friendly as possible. There is a certain amount of repetition for the purpose of reinforcing important points and tying together the extension in a cohesive manner, but despite all efforts to make this work easier to understand, it is still deep and will require that you go at a snail’s pace, reading many things over and over again. When you have finally grasped the full significance and magnitude of this work and further realize there has never been and will never be another like it because of what is undeniably achieved, you will cherish it throughout your entire life.

You father wrote that there were three kinds of homosexuality and all would vanish in his and your ugly new world. He specifically wrote that it will become “mathematically impossible” for husbands and wives to desire to share the same bed, though you later rewrote that passage to make it sound less ludicrous. He said that boys and girls would run around scantily clad and fall in love with each other’s sex organs (!) and would get hitched for life to the first sex organs they fell in love with.

Do you deny he wrote these things? The record of these writings is all over FF and can be easily found.

Yes, peacegirl, I read the book.

It sucks.

You’re really out the door, Pood, and I think deep down you know it. You are continuing to grasp at anything you can to attribute a false meaning to what he said. It is so obvious to me that you don’t like his claim about the eyes, which started your crusade against him. I had no chance in that forum when people ran with the lies. It doesn’t matter though. The truth always always wins!!

Peacegirl, did your father write those things, or not?

What possible “context” could justify these ludicrous and absurd claims? Please explain in your own words.

You can’t. You can’t even explain in your own words the “two-sided equation” (is there another kind?).

 

[peacegirl]

Jaryn, you must have misread or didn't read at all. You probably saw the Ten Commandments written and assumed that's what the book is about. Read again.

While the moral code, the Ten Commandments, our standards of right and wrong will be completely extirpated, all premarital relations, adultery, and divorce will be a thing of the past, changing the entire landscape of family relationships. Where did you ever hear anything so fantastic or paradoxical? And aren’t you jumping to the conclusion that this is against all human nature?

Yes, I know, peacegirl, and in the new world it will be mathematically impossible for married couples to desire to share the same bed, and all three (!) forms of homosexuality will pass by the wayside in due course.

You see, I did read the book.

That’s your problem. Not people who don’t read it, but people who DO.

You won't win Pood. You will not take excerpts out of context and purposely misconstrue what he wrote (he never said homosexuality was wrong), which you did in freethought-forum, just to create lulz. It ain't gonna happen again. You and a few others made the book unrecognizable, which is a problem if people don't understand or don't care to understand the truth. Pood, you understood nothing after having more than enough time, but you were too busy doing what the author urged the reader NOT to do. The bottom line is you haven't proved that man has any kind of free will, compatibilist or libertarian. Indeterminism is not the opposite of determinism either. You just can't handle that man's will is not free, never was, and never will be, no matter what you tell yourself. And btw, if determinism is proven true, free will is proven false, BY DEFINITION. If you keep this up, I will report you to the moderators. This kind of misrepresentation should not be allowed in a serious forum.

PREFACE:

In view of the fact that the first two chapters must be read thoroughly before any other reading is done, I hope that the table of contents will not tempt you to read in a desultory manner. Should you jump ahead and read other chapters, this work could appear like a fairytale; otherwise, the statement that truth is stranger than fiction will be amply verified by the scientific world, or by yourself, if you are able to follow the reasoning of mathematical relations. If you find the first two chapters difficult, don’t be discouraged because what follows will help you understand these principles much better the second time around. This book was written in a dialogue format to anticipate the questions the reader may have and to make these fairly difficult concepts as reader-friendly as possible. There is a certain amount of repetition for the purpose of reinforcing important points and tying together the extension in a cohesive manner, but despite all efforts to make this work easier to understand, it is still deep and will require that you go at a snail’s pace, reading many things over and over again. When you have finally grasped the full significance and magnitude of this work and further realize there has never been and will never be another like it because of what is undeniably achieved, you will cherish it throughout your entire life.

You father wrote that there were three kinds of homosexuality and all would vanish in his and your ugly new world. He specifically wrote that it will become “mathematically impossible” for husbands and wives to desire to share the same bed, though you later rewrote that passage to make it sound less ludicrous. He said that boys and girls would run around scantily clad and fall in love with each other’s sex organs (!) and would get hitched for life to the first sex organs they fell in love with.

Do you deny he wrote these things? The record of these writings is all over FF and can be easily found.

Yes, peacegirl, I read the book.

It sucks.

You did not read the book Pood, and you know it. You took things out of context, that's all. He said that when the environmental conditions change, where there is absolutely no judgment whatsoever, anything that had previously resulted from being judged will go by the wayside. He was not making any judgments against anyone. It was the exact opposite. You are so determined to prove him wrong that you have lost all objectivity.

 

[steve_bank]

I had not thought of it that way, the book and your posing are utopian.

If everybody thinks like I do the world will be transformed, no evil. Peace.

That is the Christian mantra among others.

On paper the Soviet Union looked very good. Wants and needs met equitably. No classes or privileged groups. No economic exploitation. Here in the USA initially it was looked on as a utopia, workers liivng in a workers' paradise. Until the realities became known.

IMO the fundamental mistake the communists made was ignoring human nature. they thought social engineering and mass indoctrination in school would usher in a new reality, and it failed.

Even in the harsh North Korea religion can not be stamped out. Forced or sociably engineered conformity does not work.

China today ends up harshly punish mg those who choose to question the political conformity, and it still goes on. There is a free speech/press movement in China.

So your idea that the world is heeding towards your ideal state with no evil does not comport with reality. If we have uncoerced free choice, there will be people who choose to differ.

Which is why the western liberal post WWII democratizes work even given the negatives. It tolerates a wide range of beliefs and ideas. It provides an historically unprecedented amount of goods for the masses. Good food 24/7. Current affordability issues aside.

So, the book and you provide interesting abstract debate, but in practical terms useless. iI gets us nowhere.

Trump is an example. He gets more horrible and erratic everyday. Yet he was elected by voters making a free unncoercedchoice.

In communist systems choices are limited and wrong choices are punished.

In 1984 language is reduced and controlled to limit the capacity of the people to frame and communicate contrary ideas. Newspeak.

Newspeak - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As a constructed language, Newspeak is a language of planned phonology, limited grammar, and finite vocabulary, much like the phonology, grammar, and vocabulary of Basic English (British American Scientific International Commercial English), which was proposed by the British linguist Charles Kay Ogden in 1930. As a controlled language without complex constructions or ambiguous usages, Basic English was designed to be easy to learn, to sound, and to speak, with a vocabulary of 850 words composed specifically to facilitate the communication of facts, not the communication of abstract thought. While employed as a propagandist by BBC during the Second World War (1939–1945), Orwell grew to believe that the constructions of Basic English, as a controlled language, imposed functional limitations upon the speech, the writing, and the thinking of the users.[5]

Free chioce and your ideas are mutially exclusive. Unless yiu want us to become an ant colny.

 

[pood]

You did not read the book Pood, and you know it. You took things out of context, that's all. He said that when the environmental conditions change, where there is absolutely no judgment whatsoever, anything that had previously resulted from being judged will go by the wayside. He was not making any judgments against anyone. It was the exact opposite. You are so determined to prove him wrong that you have lost all objectivity.

Peacegirl, did your father say, or did he not, that there were three kinds of “homo-sexuality” and all would vanish in the “new world”? Did he, or did he not, assert that young people would run around scantily clad, fall in love with one another’s sex organs, and stay married for life to the first sex organs they fell in love with? Did he, or did he not, assert that it would be “mathematically impossible” for married couples to desire to share the same bed?

Now, you know he wrote all these things. What “context” am I missing that could possibly justify these ludicrous and repulsive claims? Please tell us in YOUR OWN WORDS what the missing “context” is.

You can’t do it because you got nothing and you know it.

 

[pood]

What you ripped out of the book is the best part — Seymour’s phallogocentrism and disquisition on his Ur-penis. Not only was that inventive but it was funny as hell, rivaling Henry Miller. Yet you ripped it out of the book, prude that you apparently are.

Fortunately, as you know, ChuckF, the True Steward of the Authentic Text, rescued Seymour’s original writings.

 

[Jarhyn]

One important thing to understand here is that "homosexuality" has a survival benefit to the group.

First, it allows the expression of organized behavior free from direct reproductive activities.

Reproductive activities are extremely expensive for what they produce, expending great amounts of energy to make a new thing capable of growth, rather than spending any of that energy now on direct growth. Non-reproductive members of a species, then, are free to acquire and organize things which can be passed on and for which the primary barrier cost was in development rather than maintenance or production.

Humanity has even had the tendency to show that there is some large comorbidity of traits between the "gays" and the "innovators", insofar as we can point directly to homosexuality and asexuality among a large variety of historical thinkers, from DaVinci to Turing. If we look at a survey of modern culture, the history of music and the strange and theater is well mixed with the history of Bohemian morals.

If I going to use a tortured and complicated metaphor to discuss it, it is as if each person has three "units" of energy.

One unit of energy most people would spend on themselves to live and grow a bit, and two units most people spend on teaching and growing the next generation.

Gay people spend this differently: instead of spending the second unit on the next generation, they spend it here and now.

If we were to think of this as each person spending resources to build themselves up as a tower, and then building a tower next to them that only ever reaches as high, the "homosexual" instead builds their tower twice as high as anyone else, and then spends the remainder showing people how to build that high more quickly, perhaps using the scaffolding of those "higher towers" as a crane mount to build everyone else up, too.

The result is that the town that has these "homosexuals" in it will feature taller towers in general, and better towers, for all it may have slightly fewer of them... Because of the effort of those few not concerned with building "new" but on improving the existing infrastructure.

This is largely opposed by those who are either jealous of the status and state of homosexuals, free of such burdens, and thus their reaching of loftier heights even in the presence of the "rising tide" effect they bring, and thus bitter resentment of those whose efforts ended up not amounting to much (like PeaceGirl's daddy).

But, then again, I'm a Utopian myself. I want to write a book that may end up just as trash as PeaceGirl's daddy's book that is also about building heaven on earth. Maybe I am just as crazy! But at least I base it off of the desire for maximal variance and expression of freedom, of seeking to find or build environments where people can be as they are with fewer constraints, where people are encouraged to understand the history of the patterns they instantiate and where they have every good reason to make better decisions, or for which even "preemptive desires" ("Sam strongly and persistently wishes he had never been born") might be considered and evaluated successfully in the future.

To that end, again, perhaps I'm just as crazy... But at least I am capable of asking that question and thinking of my own possible wrongness.

 

[steve_bank]

Papergirl will not say who his major influences were. Men Kemph?

Most may not realize Hitler was a global published author at one point. He made money.

In the USA racist music, radio, records, and publications were big business.

 

[Jarhyn]

Papergirl will not say who his major influences were. Men Kemph?

Most may not realize Hitler was a global published author at one point. He made money.

In the USA racist music, radio, records, and publications were big business.

Were?

 

[steve_bank]

Papergirl will not say who his major influences were. Men Kemph?

Most may not realize Hitler was a global published author at one point. He made money.

In the USA racist music, radio, records, and publications were big business.

Were?

I don;t t5hnk it is as pervasive as it was. Culture and politics have changed.

 

[bilby]

Oh lordy, that's fucking vile. Seriously, what is it with these cranks and hating the gays?

Are you that dense, or are you pretending to be?

It sounds like a fucking miserable world to live in, or one controlled by Nazi douchebags.

Peacegirl is just another Nazi, I guess. Sad, but predictable?

What the hell are you talking about? This knowledge is the opposite of force.

Like, the world I would build is pretty much the inverse of hers: where people have a wide variety of ways they can choose to be, or the chance to find a newer way still to be, eschewing all the past as is the tendency of some. It would be a world where people to cease caring as much about who are "men" and "women" and let themselves accept the feelings they have for those around them within the bounds of consent.

What does "without the bounds of consent" even mean?

It's a world where people find a place to love the things they live and find joy in those things, we will forever see the improved success that comes from having gay family members.

You and Pood belong together. You are going along with a guy who purposely twisted the author's words for cheap laughter, but you don't seem to care. You just want to be right at all costs.

Yeah @Jarhyn, how can you say he hates gays. That's so unfair. He just wants them to no longer exist. Because their existence is a mistake.

Oh, wait.

Shit.