not at all, thank you for relieving me of culpability for my ideas, which are, after all, merely expressions of my pain and oppression as a sexual minority and not logical conclusions about reality and human nature

Usually, though, leftism is anti-rational. I need to compile the arguments I've come across into a book entitled Enlightened Liberalism: Beyond the Victim Card.

roseweird posted:

well you're posting at the rhizzone so i already know your parents would be disappointed in you, that's not the point. you suggested that abolishing the family in favor of a caretakers' collective would increase the misery of childhood, but the misery of childhood is related to the biological parent's narcissistic need for emotional fulfillment and validation in the child, which they (correctly) see as an expression of their own nature, as well as in the iniquity wrought by sexual difference and the resulting structure of the family itself. human biology itself is faulty and a major cause of human misery. repairing our biology is not science fiction any more than are medicine or evolution, and it's naive to think that a species that has described the structure of genetic code will not take an active hand in its future evolution.

Yeah but imagine if the caretakers collective had the same motivations, but there were more of them and had more control over their brood. The science fiction part has to do with believing that human faults have to do with biology, or more reductively, lie in a genetic 'code'.

roseweird posted:

swirlsofhistory posted:

I don't think it is fantasy to abolish private property because there's no clear connection between that and abolishing family



do you really think this? that there is not a close and important connection between private property, lineage, inheritance, and family?

There is, historically, but when it comes to large scale private property in the form of stocks or bonds, family life might as well be another world. There's not a huge difference between the family life of the hourly waged worker and the multi-millionaire investor, and no reason to think an investor dispossessed would be a different beast than the waged worker.

roseweird posted:

human faults do have to do with human behavior and culture, which are an outgrowth of human biology. it is obvious human institutions come from human bodies, and would not exist with human bodies, which in turn would not exist without the patterned physical structures that govern organismic development. bodies are much, much more than genetics, and i don't mean that human faults are direct expressions of dna (which really is a form of encoding, there's no need to be sly about it), but our discovery of and increasing ability to manipulate genetics and development open up new avenues for the alteration of humanity and human society.

The first part sounds very profound, but I don't think it says anything. Is there a supervenience relation between biology, human bodies, and patterned physical structures? How do we know? Or is this true by definition?

And a genetic code is definitely not encoded in any normal sense unless you believe God had instructions for life in a language he put into code, and which biologists are now translating into our own language.

roseweird posted:

as for the motivations of caretakers, this is where i think you are naive about the role of biology in shaping human institutions and social psychology: the trials and traumas of human sexual reproduction produce the peculiar narcissism of the family. caretakers can be and should be emotionally invested in children in their care, just as we expect educators to be today, but without the trauma of birth and the alienation of sexual difference they will never have identical motivations to a biological parent.

What does the trauma of birth have to do with it? If your mother had a c-section, it wasn't much more traumatic than what people having their wisdom teeth pulled or hernias fixed go through: routine surgery.

I doubt kids are going to have identical motivations to those who raise them, they have free will and it's only damaging if they are coerced into doing what they don't want to do; it doesn't matter whether it's by their bio parents or communal hive nurturers.

roseweird posted:

lol do you think i don't want to destroy marriage as an institution mustang?? because i do, i want to destroy both marriage and sexual reproduction and institutionalize artificial reproduction and a new collectivist form of the family (and i desire this even if that new society unfortunately retains sexual difference). anyway i think you overstate the destructiveness of leftists and are trying too hard to convince yourself you aren't one yourself

why do we need any reproduction at all? the prevention of future births is a moral and legally established right which brings happiness and financial stability to literally millions of human beings every day. once even accidental birth is fully eradicated, all of existing Humanity will finally be free to live out the rest of their lives in the financial and emotionally stable bliss of pure Independence

roseweird posted:

roseweird posted:

swirlsofhistory posted:

If your mother had a c-section, it wasn't much more traumatic than what people having their wisdom teeth pulled or hernias fixed go through: routine surgery

wow

man you're insane, just forget it



like, you understand that a human child represents the investment of major biological resources from the mother over a period of 9 months, that pregnancy seriously and permanently alters her body and metabolism, drains her of calcium and all sorts of other nutrients and alters her hormones, etc. right? i mean you do know how babies are made? this is so gross and myopic and. just. ew.

That's a bit wider than what I was thinking in terms of "trauma of birth".

Tangentially related, but I was watching a show on TLC and it was about a guy with a lactation and pregnancy fetish who drank his wife's breast milk and wanted to get her pregnant over and over. The wife seemed okay with it, although she looked kind of stunned and dim-witted so I don't know. That's probably the sort of thing a person would want to know about their husband before they got too serious.

roseweird posted:

what do you think are male traits

drinkin' B, kickin' A, slayin' P. Bein' Bros

roseweird posted:

right but that's because you don't actually care about the features of human society that arise from human biology,

I care, I just think you're wrong. There's a danger of deep conceptual confusion when terms from biology are invoked to 'explain' attitudes, beliefs, relationships, etc. from everyday life that we're already familiar with talking about.

roseweird posted:

just like you don't acknowledge the fact that language arises from human biology,

I never said that... I said that language first had to be used for communication between individuals, and only later when an individual had some grasp of communication, could that language be used to represent the world in an individual's thoughts.

Derek Bickerton's book Adam's Tongue has an interesting discussion of how language might have arisen from an early homo species scavenging strategy of recruiting other members to come help butcher dead megafauna, in turn providing the nutrition for bigger brains and better language abilities. Even so, he admits these are all Just So stories, and we might never know for sure how it happened due to lack of reproducibility and our own uniqueness.

roseweird posted:

i guess complete ignorance about biology is your posting gimmick?

Oh, was I treading on your turf?

Edited by swirlsofhistory (Sept. 3, 2013 05:36:50)