Split Effect of chemicals on public health

[Jimmy Higgins]

You also seem to be assuming the ones who can't find partners are Incel types. The statistics say otherwise--the Incels are a small fraction of those who are single not by choice.

Married men are not the ones in the violent loony camp. There is also good reason most employers prefer married men over single. They are more reliable, more stable, and much less likely to be loony.

It is the married men who are the ones getting more reliable sex.

This is quite the coincidence. I've been mentally penning a short Onion like piece in the last week titled "Happily married man for 25 years says masturbation just as good as actual sex".

 

[scombrid]

Well this thread tells me who tuned into Tucker Carlson's "End of Men" show with Andrew McGovern and ball tanning to tell us how to get

“men who are tough, men who are resourceful, men who are strong enough to survive,” and who could “reestablish order.”

and took it seriously.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You also seem to be assuming the ones who can't find partners are Incel types. The statistics say otherwise--the Incels are a small fraction of those who are single not by choice.

Married men are not the ones in the violent loony camp. There is also good reason most employers prefer married men over single. They are more reliable, more stable, and much less likely to be loony.

It is the married men who are the ones getting more sex.

LOL! We live in a society where there are places for folks to hide and be protected from abusive spouses.

The problem is not being "single" the problem is testosterone, and folks who don't know how to handle it's effects.

Are "Karens" powered by testosterone?

I have not researched it, so maybe there is data out there, but are high levels of testosterone linked with crime? IE, those who committed some very bad things had abnormal levels of testosterone? I feel like testosterone is being pointed at like a windmill. While certain hormones and enzymes and what not impact us, there is A LOT more to our neurochemistry than testosterone. Otherwise, wouldn't sociopaths or psychopaths just need a simple blood test to determine their diagnoses?

Certain behaviors can be linked to testosterone, but violent criminal behavior? A date rapist is at best, only committing a testosterone crime. There is a lot more psychology on going in the brain that is justifying their behavior beyond sexual drive. Additionally random rapists aren't even really committing a sex act, as much as a awful act of violation.

 

[RVonse]

It seems so many of our problems stem from conservatives being wholly incapable of accepting life changing from what they knew. Inter-racial marriage, homosexuality, gay marriage, now transgenders... each going through a similar process of social understanding. Then they seek out causes for why their worldviews are failing them.

It is hard to take conservatives seriously on these things because they were also ranting about dancing and rock and roll in the 40s and 50s.. and 60s (and long hair!)... and 80s (Heavyish Metal).... and 90s (Heavy Metal).

Or it just might be that conservatives have the wherewithal to understand that societal changes can and do cause consequences that may not be immediately obvious. And that science and not left ideology is the best way moving forward to understand those relationships.

Wow. Umm no. First off, when you say science, that is misleading because you ain't a scientist, you trend towards the fringes where science is taken out of context to support dubious positions.

Secondly, THIS is a complicated issue and isn't a binary solution. The trouble with science isn't the science, it is the agenda of people that use it for nefarious or harmful purposes (think military, capitalists, supremacists). Look at the early 20th century and eugenics. A little bit of information went a long way to do a great deal of harm. We became arrogant sons-of-bitches and thought we were the masters of nature.
Liberalism has a great track-record. Anti-slavery, allowing blacks to read... to vote, inter-racial marriage, gay marriage... etc... Liberalism can be perverted as well, which leads to left-wing populism and that isn't great. But conservatism is rooted in not changing. It fails because it presumes what is now is what can be best. And that usually isn't the case, especially for those who aren't given a voice. As I listed, and didn't include women's rights (also another thing conservatives failed on), each of those things weren't conservative as they implied change.

Often conservatives are battling on the wrong hills. They don't fight for rights expansions (well, Justices O'Day and Kennedy did), they fight for rights to not change. Which is perverted because conservatives should be stalwarts for rights. Those principles should be the things they aim to not change. Instead it is about whether gays can have hospital rights, women can vote, blacks marry whites (again, conservative mindsets said NO!!!! to each of those.. and 2 of the 3 needed to be settled in court, while the other took 100 years to get going). And note that none of that stuff is science related, I mean other than people who supported women not voting or blacks not marrying whites because of racial purity or bogus biological ideas of women being mentally inferior.

I think we mostly agree here. We agree that change is good if it causes good and we agree that change is bad if it causes harm. That if change causes harm we should do what we did before (because it was better) but if change results in better we should update the old with the new. I know I have no problem with any of this aforementioned.

The only problem I have is that society has recently become loony with mass shootings and that it is not out of bounds to suggest some (if not all of it) has been caused by liberal change (environment and/or otherwise). And to let science take us where it needs to go to fix this rather than wholesale gut the 2nd amendment.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It seems so many of our problems stem from conservatives being wholly incapable of accepting life changing from what they knew. Inter-racial marriage, homosexuality, gay marriage, now transgenders... each going through a similar process of social understanding. Then they seek out causes for why their worldviews are failing them.

It is hard to take conservatives seriously on these things because they were also ranting about dancing and rock and roll in the 40s and 50s.. and 60s (and long hair!)... and 80s (Heavyish Metal).... and 90s (Heavy Metal).

Or it just might be that conservatives have the wherewithal to understand that societal changes can and do cause consequences that may not be immediately obvious. And that science and not left ideology is the best way moving forward to understand those relationships.

Wow. Umm no. First off, when you say science, that is misleading because you ain't a scientist, you trend towards the fringes where science is taken out of context to support dubious positions.

Secondly, THIS is a complicated issue and isn't a binary solution. The trouble with science isn't the science, it is the agenda of people that use it for nefarious or harmful purposes (think military, capitalists, supremacists). Look at the early 20th century and eugenics. A little bit of information went a long way to do a great deal of harm. We became arrogant sons-of-bitches and thought we were the masters of nature.
Liberalism has a great track-record. Anti-slavery, allowing blacks to read... to vote, inter-racial marriage, gay marriage... etc... Liberalism can be perverted as well, which leads to left-wing populism and that isn't great. But conservatism is rooted in not changing. It fails because it presumes what is now is what can be best. And that usually isn't the case, especially for those who aren't given a voice. As I listed, and didn't include women's rights (also another thing conservatives failed on), each of those things weren't conservative as they implied change.

Often conservatives are battling on the wrong hills. They don't fight for rights expansions (well, Justices O'Day and Kennedy did), they fight for rights to not change. Which is perverted because conservatives should be stalwarts for rights. Those principles should be the things they aim to not change. Instead it is about whether gays can have hospital rights, women can vote, blacks marry whites (again, conservative mindsets said NO!!!! to each of those.. and 2 of the 3 needed to be settled in court, while the other took 100 years to get going). And note that none of that stuff is science related, I mean other than people who supported women not voting or blacks not marrying whites because of racial purity or bogus biological ideas of women being mentally inferior.

I think we mostly agree here. We agree that change is good if it causes good and we agree that change is bad if it causes harm. That if change causes harm we should do what we did before (because it was better) but if change results in better we should update the old with the new. I know I have no problem with any of this aforementioned.

Kind of like saying we agree that blue things are blue, and you insist the sky is green?

The only problem I have is that society has recently become loony with mass shootings and that it is not out of bounds to suggest some (if not all of it) has been caused by liberal change (environment and/or otherwise). And to let science take us where it needs to go to fix this rather than wholesale gut the 2nd amendment.

Yeah, that is the thing, you say science, but what you mean is "What you want it to be" and go cherry picking to answer why our first world nation has this problem but other first world nations don't despite sharing very similar standards of living.

 

[bilby]

The only problem I have is that society has recently become loony with mass shootings

*citation needed.

Does "recently" here mean "in the last 125 years"? Because if not, I am pretty sure that the problem is that you're flat out wrong.

Society has been getting steadily less violent for at least a century. Mass shootings have been a feature of American culture for a very long time, as measured against a human lifespan, and nobody alive today can personally recall a time when they were not.

Society HAS recently become loony with mass reportage and mass consumption of violent imagery. But the violent events now saturating our consciousness aren't new. What's new is just our constantly being bombarded with the gory details.

 

[Jarhyn]

"Karens" powered by testosterone

I would hazard to expect they are powered instead by estrogen, but while I have clear first hand experience on the effects of testosterone, I do not have direct first hand experience of the other.

The best I can offer you is that I do know some trans women whose transitions took them off guard and this led to some very antisocial behavior and accusations which they later apologized for once they had some.more experience with their new hormonal balance.

Personally, I don't want either hormone driving me to any kind of "darwinistically strategic derangement".

It's just that the "testosterone" version of such derangement is significantly more physically directed, and the other version is, apparently, more social.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The only problem I have is that society has recently become loony with mass shootings

*citation needed.

Does "recently" here mean "in the last 125 years"? Because if not, I am pretty sure that the problem is that you're flat out wrong.

Society has been getting steadily less violent for at least a century. Mass shootings have been a feature of American culture for a very long time, as measured against a human lifespan, and nobody alive today can personally recall a time when they were not.

Society HAS recently become loony with mass reportage and mass consumption of violent imagery. But the violent events now saturating our consciousness aren't new. What's new is just our constantly being bombarded with the gory details.

In the US, large mass violence by individuals while not unprecedented, seems to be rising, while violent crime (and crime) in general, despite the right-wing alarmism, is still relatively low. There are locations like Seattle, where there are actually increases in violence.

Certainly global conflict wise, while very far from peaceful, ain't nuthin' as bad as it was 1945 or earlier. The nukes keep people on edge though. Expansion of globalism (something RVonse hates) is definitely a major factor in that drop in global conflict. Having more money is typically more beneficial than more war with dubious gains.

 

[RVonse]

The only problem I have is that society has recently become loony with mass shootings

*citation needed.

Does "recently" here mean "in the last 125 years"? Because if not, I am pretty sure that the problem is that you're flat out wrong.

So that means we do not have a problem then? Then the problem is solved and we are all perfectly fine with that too.

I recommend you make sure to inform every liberal poster who brings up canning the 2nd amendment whenever the media proclaims another shooting. Because society is less violent and we don't really have a problem. Its the liberal hysteria that is the problem too.

 

[bilby]

So that means we do not have a problem then?

No, it means that YOU don't have a solution, nor any inkling of what one might sensibly look like, because you're wallowing in a nostalgic image of the past that owes fuck all to reality.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You also seem to be assuming the ones who can't find partners are Incel types. The statistics say otherwise--the Incels are a small fraction of those who are single not by choice.

Married men are not the ones in the violent loony camp. There is also good reason most employers prefer married men over single. They are more reliable, more stable, and much less likely to be loony.

It is the married men who are the ones getting more reliable sex.

Which doesn't address my point at all.

And what we see in the employment market is that employers prefer young workers that are easier to exploit.

 

[Ford]

So that means we do not have a problem then?

No, it means that YOU don't have a solution, nor any inkling of what one might sensibly look like, because you're wallowing in a nostalgic image of the past that owes fuck all to reality.

But there was a solution! Let me communicate it in video form (since that's how some argue nowadays):

 

[Jarhyn]

Oh, so I just found something interesting out, which has completely changed a perspective I have.

RVonse, I would GLADLY encourage you and any other "low T" person or Incel to load up on all the testosterone you want. Go ahead. PLEASE. Be my guest.

You should take all the testosterone you need to, to be the manly man you think you should be.

Mostly because this causes failed spermatogenesis, and will keep such people from actually remaining in the gene pool.