Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Ime interested in seeing other peoples own view on children, but more importantly, what do you think is important in having children? do you think its better not to have children, or perhaps its important that you do?

what do you think is overall the most worthwhile aspects, or most useless aspects of them?

for women having children is really important, it competes then, it actually changes their life

For men it is a little bit different some have the same feeling as the women do, but some others don't give a tinny rats a**.

the most important thing when you have children is that you have a continuation of ones' self, the one that will continue you when you pass on
and of course everything is about preserving the species

hm I see your view, can you explain "completes them" please, what changes their lives apart from ofc the childs requirements, that changes many peoples lives.

I disagree that everythng is about preserving the species, thats a typical animal instinct but since Humans are more important than most animals I belive we can think of higher things than simply continueing the spieces.

Do women belive their children love them in return? I wonder what makes a women love their child so highly or perhaps its just a usual animal instinct, nothing remarkable?

Yeah, all those women, being slaves to their hormone

No difference between them at all

All just breeding machines that love having themz children

You guys didn't realize it's the 21st century, right? Just a tip, if you ever encounter one, we also don't think ******* are stupid anymore.

There are too many animals among the human race, not enough actual "human" since although we are humans, we shuldnt just follow the animal instincts and be a drone of soceity imo, I think there are too many guys who just want to have sex and too many women who just want to have children, But I made this thread in an effort to see any human reasons for having children other than animal instincts. From what ive seen, a women does not have much choice to having a child, she is automiatcally and socially made to belive that its terrible not to have one, which is why most women just seem to have the instinctual need and no real human requirement for a child.

Children are the future, we have to stop them now.

their the future but not every future is a good one, Hitler was the future baby once you know, as was Bush....

Originally posted by Burning thought
their the future but not every future is a good one, Hitler was the future baby once you know, as was Bush....

Bush is definately in the same league as Hitler.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, all those women, being slaves to their hormone

No difference between them at all

All just breeding machines that love having themz children

You guys didn't realize it's the 21st century, right? Just a tip, if you ever encounter one, we also don't think ******* are stupid anymore.

nobody said that

women are not breeding machines!! it is just that any instinct is far more important and strong from any other belief
Also you must consider that we live in a society that promotes the idea of a family with children. You must consider that most people think of it as a moral obligation !!

Originally posted by Burning thought
hm

Do women believe their children love them in return? I wonder what makes a women love their child so highly or perhaps its just a usual animal instinct, nothing remarkable?

every society has some unwritten rules for example a mothers love is always taken for granted but there are many living examples that show as the opposite thing (mother killers etc) but those are extreme examples. also literature has many times been involved in those maters from the ancient Medea to the "contemporary" "stranger" of Camus. if we take those two stories as an example we see that the one that doesn't obey to those unwritten rules is most of the times considered as a monster a stranger . When you hear that Medea is a woman that killed her children you fell ill or consider her as crazy the same reaction you get if you hear that someone didn't even looked sad in his mothers funeral.
It is said that mother and child are connected and "bound" within the first 5 seconds of the child's' life, so you see. If you make an other living being your self and mold its every detail wouldn't you love it ???

Originally posted by Bardock42
we also don't think ******* are stupid anymore.

You betcha Joe Sixpack

Originally posted by Pezmerga
Bush is definately in the same league as Hitler.

Well attacking Iraq for the love of Oil and causing such war and destruction, AND THEN staying there causing more menace is not too far off from mass genicide, at least Hitler didnt directly order to kill the Jews

Originally posted by danaoula hime
nobody said that

women are not breeding machines!! it is just that any instinct is far more important and strong from any other belief
Also you must consider that we live in a society that promotes the idea of a family with children. You must consider that most people think of it as a moral obligation !!

Thats what ime talking about, Drone people, those who simply follow instincts blindly, very often women for children for example (although many times you get the sex craving guy who only thinks of sex) and I think soceity is running people into this, as well as the moral obligation your talking of, its true, and it makes me sick because when the mother and/or father realisies that the truth is not quite as wonderful around children as the morals and instincts tell them this can lead to child abuse, cruelty overall or simply lack of love, and the women who follow the instinct and morals above all else (many women, infact most that I know at least) can turn most other things in their life as second value, sometimes even beocming as bad as having a one night stand with a guy and perhaps ruining his life by making him feel stuck.

Originally posted by danaoula hime
You must consider that most people think of it as a moral obligation !!

To keep the species existing?

In a modern environment keeping the Speices excisting is not the most important thing, keeping the Spieces evolving is, and a human race who are simply morally bent without question to have children and to be pressured, perhaps even without knowing they are to do something they may regret later is wrong. If we cant even control the instincts the human race may as well be living in caves.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Ime interested in seeing other peoples own view on children, but more importantly, what do you think is important in having children? do you think its better not to have children, or perhaps its important that you do?

what do you think is overall the most worthwhile aspects, or most useless aspects of them?

Gary glitter would write a whole book to answer your questions.

I dont see the connection, humour or much else in your statement, please explain?

Originally posted by danaoula hime
nobody said that

women are not breeding machines!! it is just that any instinct is far more important and strong from any other belief
Also you must consider that we live in a society that promotes the idea of a family with children. You must consider that most people think of it as a moral obligation !! You must consider that not everyone lives in Greece. And even if they did, I assume it's not even the case there.

Women are individuals as well. Such a blind generalization as you uttered is idiotic at best.

Very few people are indiivduals in soceity, they are simply another piece in a clockwork system, are you suggesting there is a meaninful reason behind a women wanting a child to the extent that everthing else comes second place?

If so, please explain it.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Very few people are indiivduals in soceity, they are simply another piece in a clockwork system, are you suggesting there is a meaninful reason behind a women wanting a child to the extent that everthing else comes second place?

If so, please explain it. You misunderstood me. My point was that your initial assumption that all women want to take care of children and disregard everything else is incorrect. I am not going to provide you arguments for your flawed assumption.

I have younger nieces and nephews that I can pass knowledge on to and then send home to their parents.

It's ideal really.

-AC

Originally posted by Bardock42
You misunderstood me. My point was that your initial assumption that all women want to take care of children and disregard everything else is incorrect. I am not going to provide you arguments for your flawed assumption.

I did not mean to convey ALL since a handfull may have their own mind through some reason, although soceity pushes women in that direction, and if you cannot provide arguments saying why my apprent flawed assumption is indeed flawed, then you have no case....

Originally posted by Burning thought
In a modern environment keeping the Speices excisting is not the most important thing, keeping the Spieces evolving is, and a human race who are simply morally bent without question to have children and to be pressured, perhaps even without knowing they are to do something they may regret later is wrong. If we cant even control the instincts the human race may as well be living in caves.

Question: how does the species evolve if it dies out?

Because it doesnt die out, the chance that 100% of the population will choose to follow its own mind rather than soceities is likely impossible, but lets say they did, not everyone will choose not to have children, thats why I created this thread to see if there were human reasons and not baseless instincts of "their just special to have", ime waiting to see if someone can come up with some, ime sure there are reasons. Perhaps there are none and the human race would just die out but I dont belive so, ime sure there are intelligent ideas on this.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Because it doesnt die out, the chance that 100% of the population will choose to follow its own mind rather than soceities is likely impossible, but lets say they did, not everyone will choose not to have children, thats why I created this thread to see if there were human reasons and not baseless instincts of "their just special to have", ime waiting to see if someone can come up with some, ime sure there are reasons. Perhaps there are none and the human race would just die out but I dont belive so, ime sure there are intelligent ideas on this.

a) I can barely read that
b) rational reason for having kids: it would be nice for the species to keep existing
c) rational reason for having kids: it would be nice if we were immortal but we're not

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
a) I can barely read that
b) rational reason for having kids: it would be nice for the species to keep existing
c) rational reason for having kids: it would be nice if we were immortal but we're not


a) how hard is it to read?

The chances that the entire population would be intelligent enough to make their decisions rather than have soceity make them for them is next to nothing.

AND

If the whole of soceity did...there "should" i hope be someone out there who has an intelligent reason to have so much interest in children, ime more targeting those, mostly women who have Children as their main interest in life, for example ,I asked a 14 year old, very young, shouldnt be so absolute in her ideal, yet she believes that the highest thing in her life, the most important thing ever in her life will be the child she wants to have , thats a combination of sick and shameful imo, since a girl of that age doesnt even know much on the subject, hell I even asked her, she said she didnt know, so this sounds like a combination of her instincts and social beliefs.

b) maybe, if thats your view fair enough, if thats the only reason for having children then okie. Personally over arrogent parasites of the planet that destroy eachother and who are mere animals anyway especially at base value (like this thread is about, instincts ruling behavior and pack mentality ruling minds) are not the most worthwhile aspect of the universe, certainly not this planet. If the only reason for a mother to think her child is more than the world to her, then this is shameful. But I dont belive it is, its either instinct/soceity as I said above or a better reason that ime searching for.

Originally posted by Burning thought
I did not mean to convey ALL since a handfull may have their own mind through some reason, although soceity pushes women in that direction, and if you cannot provide arguments saying why my apprent flawed assumption is indeed flawed, then you have no case.... Your assumption that all (or at least most) women are mere slaves to instincts? I don't need to disprove that. It's your burden to prove if you make a statement.

It would also be easier if the sytax of your sentences as well as those of your apparent "logic" would make a tiny bit of sense. It is extremely hard to even guess what you are babbling about.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Your assumption that all (or at least most) women are mere slaves to instincts? I don't need to disprove that. It's your burden to prove if you make a statement.

It would also be easier if the sytax of your sentences as well as those of your apparent "logic" would make a tiny bit of sense. It is extremely hard to even guess what you are babbling about.

The majority of people around me I can see this in, thats my logical opinion is that soceity pushes the idea of having children on women as the most important thing, if you look at my example a few posts above, even at young ages women/girls have a great interest in children or a requirement for them before they even understand the fundementals. And actually not just slaves to instincts but also soceities goals, as are most people unfortunatley.

Do you have a logical philosphy on this? probably not from your posts.

I think you probably dont have any real view yourself, you simply disagree yet have no reason behind your own disagreement.

Originally posted by Burning thought
The majority of people around me I can see this in, thats my logical opinion is that soceity pushes the idea of having children on women as the most important thing, if you look at my example a few posts above, even at young ages women/girls have a great interest in children or a requirement for them before they even understand the fundementals. And actually not just slaves to instincts but also soceities goals, as are most people unfortunatley.

Do you have a logical philosphy on this? probably not from your posts.

I think you probably dont have any real view yourself, you simply disagree yet have no reason behind your own disagreement. I assume you are on of the few examples able to form independent thoughts?

Originally posted by Burning thought
a) how hard is it to read?

It's like you don't use periods or capital letters. Has the comma union gotten to you?

Originally posted by Burning thought
The chances that the entire population would be intelligent enough to make their decisions rather than have soceity make them for them is next to nothing.

Yeah, people are sheep, we're designed that way because it benefits survival/god said so. You also seem to ignore the idea that intelligence choices can match up with society. Something like:

"Gee, I'm an independent thinker that wants the human race not to die out I should probably think of having kids even though the evil boogey-man that is society thinks it's okay if I do that.

Originally posted by Burning thought
If the whole of soceity did...there "should" i hope be someone out there who has an intelligent reason to have so much interest in children, ime more targeting those, mostly women who have Children as their main interest in life, for example ,I asked a 14 year old, very young, shouldnt be so absolute in her ideal, yet she believes that the highest thing in her life, the most important thing ever in her life will be the child she wants to have , thats a combination of sick and shameful imo, since a girl of that age doesnt even know much on the subject, hell I even asked her, she said she didnt know, so this sounds like a combination of her instincts and social beliefs.

She's 14, what does she know about what she wants/needs/will actually end up doing in the future?

Originally posted by Burning thought
b) maybe, if thats your view fair enough, if thats the only reason for having children then okie. Personally over arrogent parasites of the planet that destroy eachother and who are mere animals anyway especially at base value (like this thread is about, instincts ruling behavior and pack mentality ruling minds) are not the most worthwhile aspect of the universe, certainly not this planet. If the only reason for a mother to think her child is more than the world to her, then this is shameful. But I dont belive it is, its either instinct/soceity as I said above or a better reason that ime searching for.

I get it, you're cynical. So am I.

Keeping the species around and allowing it to develop because of that is a perfectly good non-instinct non-evil-boogyman-society based reason for having kids. So is, "because I want to *****."

Sure I can form indepednant thoughts, because I create reasons from a human point of view for most things important to me, for example when I have sex, I do it not because I feel the great urge to sustain my lust, but because I feel "love" (a human belief, not instinctual or animal) for a being. When I judge people,I dont judge them by soceities views such as "damn that homosexual is a freak!", I judge them by who the person is. Not because soceity wants you to look down on certain cultures or groups.

Ime sure you understand soceity mentality? towards diffrent groups, or peoples? sort of like racism was a common social problem and in some areas is still a problem. Other idiotic social views that some "drones" (people who do not have real independant thought) have are that smoking is acceptable, just because a group of their friends do it, it happens to many times. Similiar with drugs.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Sure I can form indepednant thoughts, because I create reasons from a human point of view for most things important to me, for example when I have sex, I do it not because I feel the great urge to sustain my lust, but because I feel "love" (a human belief, not instinctual or animal) for a being. When I judge people,I dont judge them by soceities views such as "damn that homosexual is a freak!", I judge them by who the person is. Not because soceity wants you to look down on certain cultures or groups.

Ime sure you understand soceity mentality? towards diffrent groups, or peoples? sort of like racism was a common social problem and in some areas is still a problem. Other idiotic social views that some "drones" (people who do not have real independant thought) have are that smoking is acceptable, just because a group of their friends do it, it happens to many times. Similiar with drugs.

You seem to have some cynical ... juvenile philosophical ideas that you just apply based on, really nothing much, but a sort of arrogance about yourself. It's odd.

Obviously other people have independent thoughts. We all (ALL) are influenced by our instincts and by our society and our surroundings, in one way or another. But so far I have yet to see you make a valid or intelligent point about any of the topics you choose to address.

George Carlin said it better than I eve could

niQ73ZlDxuI

yIXlwYoOV9k

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It's like you don't use periods or capital letters. Has the comma union gotten to you?



Yeah, people are sheep, we're designed that way because it benefits survival/god said so. You also seem to ignore the idea that intelligence choices can match up with society. Something like:

"Gee, I'm an independent thinker that wants the human race not to die out I should probably think of having kids even though the evil boogey-man that is society thinks it's okay if I do that.



She's 14, what does she know about what she wants/needs/will actually end up doing in the future?



I get it, you're cynical. So am I.

Keeping the species around and allowing it to develop because of that is a perfectly good non-instinct non-evil-boogyman-society based reason for having kids. So is, "because I want to *****."

Oh I see, you love grammar, Well if I can read through and understand information where people dont even use full stops or any grammar at all ime sure you can.

Exactley, people are usually sheep.

Thats a bogus decision, as if anyone sits there dreaming of their future excistence to be based around keeping the humans as a speices alive, and Soceity doesnt just think its "okie", Soceity makes you feel the "need" to have one, and especially in women, the "my life is not fulfilled until I have one" syndrome

And actually keeping the spieces surviving is an instinct and because you want to ***** is also an instinct based reason.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You seem to have some cynical ... juvenile philosophical ideas that you just apply based on, really nothing much, but a sort of arrogance about yourself. It's odd.

Obviously other people have independent thoughts. We all (ALL) are influenced by our instincts and by our society and our surroundings, in one way or another. But so far I have yet to see you make a valid or intelligent point about any of the topics you choose to address.

Thats baseless, explain please, otherwise you may as well just go "your wrong!!!"

Many people are completly shaped and formed by their soceity and instincts, they simply like to belive they are independantly thinking, which is probably what your doing right now by constantly saying "your wrong!!" without giving examples or logical reasoning, apprently ime simply given your baseless opiniion of how ime making "no valid or intelligent points".

Originally posted by Burning thought
Oh I see, you love grammar, Well if I can read through and understand information where people dont even use full stops or any grammar at all ime sure you can.

Exactley, people are usually sheep.

Thats a bogus decision, as if anyone sits there dreaming of their future excistence to be based around keeping the humans as a speices alive, and Soceity doesnt just think its "okie", Soceity makes you feel the "need" to have one, and especially in women, the "my life is not fulfilled until I have one" syndrome

I'm with Bardock on this one. You're talking nonsense out your ass.

Originally posted by Burning thought
And actually keeping the spieces surviving is an instinct

Of the most irrelevant sort.

Originally posted by Burning thought
because you want to ***** is also an instinct based reason.

Five letters. Try again.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm with Bardock on this one. You're talking nonsense out your ass.



Of the most irrelevant sort.



Five letters. Try again.

You can be with who you like on whatever you like, but until you have any reasoning or debatable points in the argument it doesnt matter, your proving the soceity view of "he doesnt belive what the rest of us belive so he must be wrong!...." nonsense, where you cannot actually give a logical answer.

Originally posted by Morgoths_Wrath
George Carlin said it better than I eve could

niQ73ZlDxuI

yIXlwYoOV9k

hehe I like

Originally posted by Burning thought
Thats baseless, explain please, otherwise you may as well just go "your wrong!!!"

I would never do that.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Many people are completly shaped and formed by their soceity and instincts, they simply like to belive they are independantly thinking, which is probably what your doing right now by constantly saying "your wrong!!" without giving examples or logical reasoning, apprently ime simply given your baseless opiniion of how ime making "no valid or intelligent points".

What would you like me to prove? That people are influenced by instincts and their society? I can send a PM to inimalist or xmarksthespot, they can probably state studies of such a nature. That all humans have independent thought? Well, I got a problem there, I don't know how you'd define independent. You go into regions there that are very hard to explain and separate. What could probably be proven (though complicated) scientifically, that there are no people who are just independent of society and their own instincts. I can't prove to you, that you, are just as much a product of instincts and your surroundings as the next person (you'd call a sheep), but I would say it's pretty evident and most people would agree.

Originally posted by Burning thought
You can be with who you like on whatever you like, but until you have any reasoning or debatable points in the argument it doesnt matter, your proving the soceity view of "he doesnt belive what the rest of us belive so he must be wrong!...."

I . . . I can be with Bardock? But they said it was illegal here.

I've given you plenty of points. You've given none.

Originally posted by Burning thought
you cannot actually give a logical answer.

I can't give a logical answer to something that has no logical basis. You've yet to form an argument, everything so far has been irrelevant ranting.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I would never do that.



What would you like me to prove? That people are influenced by instincts and their society? I can send a PM to inimalist or xmarksthespot, they can probably state studies of such a nature. That all humans have independent thought? Well, I got a problem there, I don't know how you'd define independent. You go into regions there that are very hard to explain and separate. What could probably be proven (though complicated) scientifically, that there are no people who are just independent of society and their own instincts. I can't prove to you, that you, are just as much a product of instincts and your surroundings as the next person (you'd call a sheep), but I would say it's pretty evident and most people would agree.

good.

No, my argument is also that People are genrally completly influenced by those things, religion, fashion, soceity views as a whole, the problem is, it stuffs peoples minds from when their young full of so much nonsense, from overall soceity views like "my friend smokes so i will, I dont care if it says ill die on the packet...my friend does it!" sort of thing.

I define independant thought as thoughts where a person can give reasons for their actions based on human notions from their OWN belief, to be their own indepdant person, when they make decisions that are not controlled by soceity, when in some countries people say "Gay" is wrong just because soceity thinks so.

Pretty evident and most peple would agree? you mean soceity would agree? yeh ofc....

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I . . . I can be with Bardock? But they said it was illegal here.

I've given you plenty of points. You've given none.



I can't give a logical answer to something that has no logical basis. You've yet to form an argument, everything so far has been irrelevant ranting.

Sure I have, how Have i not pointed out to you that simply having the need to have sex is not a compeletly independant notion that is not instinct or soceity based? how have I not made it obvious that survival of your race is not instinctual, ofc it is, since every animal has the same need for survival.

I think that irrelvent ranting is simply text you are too lazy to read or are not intelligent enough to understand "shrug". If you have difficulty with somethng quote it and ill help you out.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Sure I have, how Have i not pointed out to you that simply having the need to have sex is not a compeletly independant notion that is not instinct or soceity based? how have I not made it obvious that survival of your race is not instinctual, ofc it is, since every animal has the same need for survival.

So you just want to cry about reality? Have fun, you'll never accomplish anything and people will (quite justifiably) mock you. But have fun anyway.

Originally posted by Burning thought
I think that irrelvent ranting is simply text you are too lazy to read or are not intelligent enough to understand "shrug". If you have difficulty with somethng quote it and ill help you out.

Originally posted by Burning thought
good.

I think you misunderstand me.

Originally posted by Burning thought
No, my argument is also that People are genrally completly influenced by those things, religion, fashion, soceity views as a whole, the problem is, it stuffs peoples minds from when their young full of so much nonsense, from overall soceity views like "my friend smokes so i will, I dont care if it says ill die on the packet...my friend does it!" sort of thing.

Do you have any prove whatsoever that they are completely influenced by that? And wouldn't the difference in believes even among similarly educated (or even brainwashed) people, be indication that there is at least some independent difference?

And my I ask in what way you are not influenced by such things?

Originally posted by Burning thought
I define independant thought as thoughts where a person can give reasons for their actions based on human notions from their OWN belief, to be their own indepdant person, when they make decisions that are not controlled by soceity, when in some countries people say "Gay" is wrong just because soceity thinks so.

That's a ridiculous definition. You disregard thought because a few people came to the same conclusion? Why should everyone have a different "own" belief. If some belief makes perfect sense to people (like apparently Christianity does to many) why would they need a belief that's not common for it to be independent? Just idiotic. You don't want independence, you want uniqueness (quite different).

Originally posted by Burning thought
Pretty evident and most peple would agree? you mean soceity would agree? yeh ofc....

Well, no necessarily society, but people reading the discourse we had. I mean, it's probably provable (if we pretend that psychology is a science (which we really shouldn't)), but at least I am not willing to pay for psycho analysis for you and you are probably not willing to be subjected to it, just to settle a silly argument on the Internet.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So you just want to cry about reality? Have fun, you'll never accomplish anything and people will (quite justifiably) mock you. But have fun anyway.





ime not crying at all, ime simply trying to show people the saddity behind actions, what made you think ime crying? or is that a soceity based view youve got there that anyone who has a view beyond your own their crying about it? the reality is not humans being animals, reality is that "most" humans are animals.

People? you mean soceity, this very conversation is giving me what I want, the answer ime looking for....there is no answer to this instinctual mess and that you perhaps and those who "mock" without reason can just

yh ime right, glad you see the funny side of sloth.

You're an absolute retard.

Originally posted by Burning thought
ime not crying at all, ime simply trying to show people the saddity behind actions, what made you think ime crying? or is that a soceity based view youve got there that anyone who has a view beyond your own their crying about it? the reality is not humans being animals, reality is that "most" humans are animals.

Too literal. Crying = Complaining

You're throwing a lot accusations and generalizations around without any basis whatsoever.

All humans are animals. This false personal sense of liberation you have is comical at best, pathetic at worst.

Originally posted by Burning thought
People? you mean soceity

Thinking people.

Originally posted by Burning thought
this very conversation is giving me what I want

Attention that your parents and other kids at school never gave you?

Originally posted by Burning thought
there is no answer to this instinctual mess and that you perhaps and those who "mock" without reason can just :laugh

So you're going to cry, admit that you can't do anything about it, then cry when someone points out that you're making an ass of yourself for no reason?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think you misunderstand me.



Do you have any prove whatsoever that they are completely influenced by that? And wouldn't the difference in believes even among similarly educated (or even brainwashed) people, be indication that there is at least some independent difference?

And my I ask in what way you are not influenced by such things?



That's a ridiculous definition. You disregard thought because a few people came to the same conclusion? Why should everyone have a different "own" belief. If some belief makes perfect sense to people (like apparently Christianity does to many) why would they need a belief that's not common for it to be independent? Just idiotic. You don't want independence, you want uniqueness (quite different).



Well, no necessarily society, but people reading the discourse we had. I mean, it's probably provable (if we pretend that psychology is a science (which we really shouldn't)), but at least I am not willing to pay for psycho analysis for you and you are probably not willing to be subjected to it, just to settle a silly argument on the Internet.

proof? You can see it all around you, the fake arrogent people who hang around now days, from my own view as I showed earier with the 14 year old example, even at such a young age she belives children are her future and her only one, labelling people etc, and this carries on for a long time until the social view of "gays" being wrong is imprinted on their minds, not just gays ofc but many groups that are not seen as socially sound.

As ive said already, what makes me diffrent (independant thinker) from a sheep, a random every day arrogent who belives whatever he/she has learnt from social beliefs, whether its gays are all wrong, children are the highest form of life etc, smoking (in some social groups) is a act of "cool", this happens to both young people and older, problem is when their young (you learn more/capable of learning more in the first 7 years of life than the rest or so ive heard) imprints the ideals of soceity since you cant just randomly stop believing something youve been rammed with for the past years. What makes me diffrent is that as an independant thinker, I dont smoke if the people I am with do so, I dont have sex just because Ime attracted to someone, I dont blindly follow beliefs and social taboos.


A few people? ime not just thinking of a few people, ime thinking of soceity as a whole, being gay on a whole is not seen as "wrong" from one point of view, which is why many ages see calling someone gay as a derogatory term when its simply a sexual preferance. Yet later on those same people may start smoking, ignoring packets that say "smoking kills" just because their social group does so, its when theres logical sense in doing something, and only perhaps a few do it for their own reasons when its independant. its social control when everyone does something or when a view is seen as correct to a larger group of people and so other people, especially younger generations see that as "correct" and follow it simply because thats whats said. Same with too many people who follow beliefs of large groups just because they want to fit in.

ofcourse not, but then since were not going to do that and were not going to actually prove it, simply saying "many people will agree" is foolish since its irrelvent to the argument.

Originally posted by Burning thought
As ive said already, what makes me diffrent (independant thinker) from a sheep, a random every day arrogent who belives whatever he/she has learnt from social beliefs, whether its gays are all wrong, children are the highest form of life etc, smoking (in some social groups) is a act of "cool", this happens to both young people and older, problem is when their young (you learn more/capable of learning more in the first 7 years of life than the rest or so ive heard) imprints the ideals of soceity since you cant just randomly stop believing something youve been rammed with for the past years. What makes me diffrent is that as an independant thinker, I dont smoke if the people I am with do so, I dont have sex just because Ime attracted to someone, I dont blindly follow beliefs and social taboos.

Sort of like practically ever human.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Too literal. Crying = Complaining

You're throwing a lot accusations and generalizations around without any basis whatsoever.

All humans are animals. This false personal sense of liberation you have is comical at best, pathetic at worst.



Thinking people.



Attention that your parents and other kids at school never gave you?



So you're going to cry, admit that you can't do anything about it, then cry when someone points out that you're making an ass of yourself for no reason?


You were poking at my grammar earlier.....now I cant be literal?

I asked you earlier, quote the exact pieces and ill make sense of them for you if you are confused. I can throw generalisation since thats what Soceity control and dronage is. And yes theres a basis, the hundreds of arrogent people who belive smoking is cool so they do it, thats one social example of stupidity where people dont think for themselves.

No not quite, although technically humans are animals, we are not the average dog or cat in intelligence (although you "may" make an exception like most drones), although I could just turn that around and say your sad ideal that everything people do including yourself is completly their own ideals is worst.

Soceity, yeh I thot so.

Whats that? a derogatory joke from a worthless internet name that ime going to apprently feel hurt from? no, ime getting the evidence of what Drones are, and as soon as they cant explain their own beliefs (which are soceities not their own but they like to think its their own) they start to toss around insults.

Oh not really, cant do anything about it? theres always a way, tbh though my only interest in this forum is knowing that I am infact correct, which your showing me, thanks.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
You're an absolute retard.

mm more evidence for social dronage. excellent.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Sort of like practically ever human.

err not really, since I could prob find so many posts in this forum and examples from people around the world who follow society beliefs, are you American? America for example has one of the largest systems for controlling people, the social belief system makes so many arrogent people, racist people, sexist people etc etc.

Hell lets take an example from this forum, ill call it Specimen: Symmetric Chaos, now this species of Drone has the incredible need to consistently either bash or deny regardless of the debate at hand, he will use a combination of rowdy social tactics such as weak jokes that are supposed to insult to get a grip on his slipping argument that it seems he cannot explain, reasons why he cant? because their not his views, their soceities.

How exactly do you know that all these people smoke because it's "cool"? Sounds to me like you've bought into the idea of the existence of playground peer pressure; not to say that it doesn't exist, but you seem to think of it as some sort of epidemic - therefore making you just another sheep.

Also, are you kicking off about what's perceives as "cool" because you never were perceived that way? I know it must be hard, having the only thing going for you debating about comics, but you are by no means the only one of your kind.

Originally posted by Burning thought
err not really, since I could prob find so many posts in this forum and examples from people around the world who follow society beliefs, are you American? America for example has one of the largest systems for controlling people, the social belief system makes so many arrogent people, racist people, sexist people etc etc.

Such an apparently intelligent person, yet you can't even read my clearly exhibited location.

How dare you group him in with comic debaters like me.

BT, if you want to be taken seriously, back your arguments up with either proof or some kind of logical basis for it, not just your own opinion.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
How exactly do you know that all these people smoke because it's "cool"? Sounds to me like you've bought into the idea of the existence of playground peer pressure; not to say that it doesn't exist, but you seem to think of it as some sort of epidemic - therefore making you just another sheep.

Also, are you kicking off about what's perceives as "cool" because you never were perceived that way? I know it must be hard, having the only thing going for you debating about comics, but you are by no means the only one of your kind.



Such an apparently intelligent person, yet you can't even read my clearly exhibited location.

because I know a lot of people, why else would a person smoke if it were not for their street cred? I speak to a lot of people, being only 19 myself I am and have been at the exact place where the social control is strongest and in the past, where it starts.

"cool" is a childish term usually used for the drones/socially controlled, its basically a word that is also useful in advertisement because putting words used by youth into things make it seem more desirable to have something, thing is that word is overused by them making a lot of corny advertisements but none the less, it has worked. And btw, I dont debate comics m8 whats funny is your the embodiment of what ime talking about, your judging me now because of debating comics, lets say i did debate comics then what? does that make me wrong? ime wrong because I debate comics? thankfullly I dont, I wouldnt want to lose my quiclky diminishing important popularity in your eyes....

I'm also 19, why have I not yet inherited this fountain of knowledge, oh wise one?

No it wouldn't make you wrong, that bit was quite clearly a joke.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
I'm also 19, why have I not yet inherited this fountain of knowledge, oh wise one?

No it wouldn't make you wrong, that bit was quite clearly a joke.

Well either your a drone and so wouldnt understand it since it is based around you and so you wouldnt like to belive that your not choosing everything you do, OR you simply understnad it but dont realise it openly. I dont see whats so hard about understnad that so many people do things just because soceity pushes them that way.


It sounds like the typical BS a drone would come out with, "perhaps your insecure because you debate comics and dont have a life ya hahaha!!" before taking a puff on your death stick and giggling with your drug abusing m8s, its a typical drone response but interesting for research purposes.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Well either your a drone and so wouldnt understand it since it is based around you and so you wouldnt like to belive that your not choosing everything you do, OR you simply understnad it but dont realise it openly. I dont see whats so hard about understnad that so many people do things just because soceity pushes them that way.


It sounds like the typical BS a drone would come out with, "perhaps your insecure because you debate comics and dont have a life ya hahaha!!" before taking a puff on your death stick and giggling with your drug abusing m8s, its a typical drone response but interesting for research purposes.

So, either he agrees with you and mindlessly follows what you say or he is a sheep.

Burning thought,

From your profile:

"very important quote, if you belive in weightless and void comments, weightless assumptions, populairty of a character beating powers and feets then watch this video, several times until the message settles in"

Considering the non-argument dribble you've unleashed in this thread alone, that is irony at it's finest.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I can send a PM to inimalist or xmarksthespot, they can probably state studies of such a nature.

in_love







































Neuroplasticity

Originally posted by Burning thought
Well either your a drone and so wouldnt understand it since it is based around you and so you wouldnt like to belive that your not choosing everything you do, OR you simply understnad it but dont realise it openly. I dont see whats so hard about understnad that so many people do things just because soceity pushes them that way.


It sounds like the typical BS a drone would come out with, "perhaps your insecure because you debate comics and dont have a life ya hahaha!!" before taking a puff on your death stick and giggling with your drug abusing m8s, its a typical drone response but interesting for research purposes.

There's a lot of people who would disagree with you, most of them a lot more qualified. Take a great number of revolutionary poets and novelists - they took part in a very hedonistic lifestyle and it has always been seen to be a movement against conventional society - "The path of excess leads to the palace of wisdom" William Blake.

I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying now - are you suggesting that society wants people to smoke and take drugs? Surely that could lead to unemployment and death, which would be a loss of taxes.

Originally posted by Bardock42
So, either he agrees with you and mindlessly follows what you say or he is a sheep.

He reminds me of Starhawk.

Originally posted by Burning thought
but interesting for research purposes.

oh, would you describe the independent variable?

Originally posted by Burning thought
Well either your a drone and so wouldnt understand it since it is based around you and so you wouldnt like to belive that your not choosing everything you do, OR you simply understnad it but dont realise it openly. I dont see whats so hard about understnad that so many people do things just because soceity pushes them that way.


It sounds like the typical BS a drone would come out with, "perhaps your insecure because you debate comics and dont have a life ya hahaha!!" before taking a puff on your death stick and giggling with your drug abusing m8s, its a typical drone response but interesting for research purposes.

So anyone who does not agree with you or questions you, is a mindless drone and a slave to society?

Originally posted by Dark-Jaxx


So anyone who does not agree with you or questions you, is a mindless drone and a slave to society?

It's brilliant or would be if thousands of idiots before him hadn't tried that one.

Oh and before I forget...

Happy birthday Robtard.

Burning Thought:

back on topic for a second, are you saying that there are no ways that a woman would independently come to the conclusion that they want a child?

how is this congruent with the fact that women consistently rate the relationship with their children as being more important than their relationship with their spouse... Surely women can't be "socially brainwashed" to get self fulfillment through something.

Originally posted by Dark-Jaxx
Happy birthday Robtard.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Burning thought

arrogent
The word you are looking for is 'arrogant'.
You misspell it several times. Do you not have spell check? Does it make you feel 'cool' to intentionally look like an idiot online?


LEARN TEH GRAMMAR

I dont think anyone should have children as a way of "completing" themselves.

Thank you and thank you.

Oh Happy B Day

Originally posted by inimalist
Burning Thought:

back on topic for a second, are you saying that there are no ways that a woman would independently come to the conclusion that they want a child?

how is this congruent with the fact that women consistently rate the relationship with their children as being more important than their relationship with their spouse... Surely women can't be "socially brainwashed" to get self fulfillment through something.

No, ime asking for examples of where a women does independantly want a child.

And yes they can be socially brain washed to get fullfillment, it happens all the time doesnt it, especially in the young when a child wants a toy in an advertisement just because it looks nice in the images they get amount of fullfillment out of gaining it. Fashion is another one for older people, Fashion designers make people want to buy their products, they make them feel out of place with soceity if they dont fullfill their fashion "needs" and then by gaining that item the person feels good about themselves, even if it is just a ploy from Fashion designers/merchants for their products to be bought and they dont care about the faceless unknown people and how they look in the products.

Popularity is another sad depravity of the social view which is a good example of gaining fullfillment. If someone is not populour or does not feel they are they get upset, wheras if they are "populour" they feel good about themselves, they get fullfillment. Even if their a massively fake person, there are many people who are massively fake, if youve ever seen that "sweet sixteen" program, you can see how the younger generations gain fullfillment out of the view that their populour just because they happen to have a massive list of people going to their parties, they dont sit down it seems and think "well none of these people hardly even know me, their just using me and my party for entertainment", they simply think of how populour they are, which ofc is a fake soceity view but a potent one.

Originally posted by inimalist
oh, would you describe the independent variable?

Independants are variable because they can choose as they will.

Originally posted by Dark-Jaxx


So anyone who does not agree with you or questions you, is a mindless drone and a slave to society?

The same as i said to bardock, anyone who simply disagrees without notion or argument is a pack animal, but theres a lot of variables in being a mindless slave, not just one, however being a pack animal is one example.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
There's a lot of people who would disagree with you, most of them a lot more qualified. Take a great number of revolutionary poets and novelists - they took part in a very hedonistic lifestyle and it has always been seen to be a movement against conventional society - "The path of excess leads to the palace of wisdom" William Blake.

I'm having trouble understanding what you're saying now - are you suggesting that society wants people to smoke and take drugs? Surely that could lead to unemployment and death, which would be a loss of taxes.


Disagree? you cant disagree that soceity shapes people massively if not completly makes them who they are and through its manipulations can make a person into a drone. because youve already shown me many dronelike notions yourself, your first one was "your a retard" which was a random view without base, then you gave me the bit about comic book debators not having a life joke, which emphasised a large view on soceity which is often a load of rubbish and people follow such a view because thats what soceity dictates.

No soceity is not in control 100% of itself, it depends what viewpoint your looking from, soceity as a whole is very ignorent, people have an incredible pack mentality, if one person does something its not likely to cause a rave (unless its a celebrity) but if a group of 5 people do something, and someone else joins that group, the chances are that new person will follow the group regardless of ideal.

Looking from a superiority official view (basiclaly the view from a tobacco company official perhaps) then youve got the economical weighing system of, "hell this person has already bought thousands of my cigerettes, caused the addiction to be spread to many of their friends/family and promoted me" his death means nothing in the long run of the economics because their low wage (likely due to stupidity from smoking and common sense) wouldnt mean half as much to the Tobacco company official as the amount of people already buying the cigarettes, and everyone here knows that even a tramp can afford a pack of cigarettes, when they are begging they use their money on drugs and alcahol or death sticks, not food.

Originally posted by Robtard
Burning thought,

From your profile:

"very important quote, if you belive in weightless and void comments, weightless assumptions, populairty of a character beating powers and feets then watch this video, several times until the message settles in"

Considering the non-argument dribble you've unleashed in this thread alone, that is irony at it's finest.

But not really, because my arguments and logic have weight and are not void, since I base everything on soceity, which ofc excists.

Originally posted by Bardock42
So, either he agrees with you and mindlessly follows what you say or he is a sheep.

oh certianly not, he should simply be able to form an argument, give me a reason why ime wrong instead of simply saying I am. Looking at inimalists recent posts he is addressing my views, not simply saying ime wrong, so even if he does belive ime wrong (whcih is difficult because its my opinion) he is at least trying to get behind it, instead of simply saying "your wrong and make no sense"

Children are slaves that you can guilt into doing whatever you want with only minimal whining. Why else is the Mafia so powerful? Control and Power my friends, control and power.

i hope you realize that everyone is influenced by people and the enviroment even you. We all get ideas from other people and the things we enjoy were usally brought to us by others who enjoy it.
and it is an instinct to want children and to care more about them, if it wasnt then how would people have been doing it for ever way before our soicites got beyond the small nomad family.

Originally posted by Burning thought
No, ime asking for examples of where a women does independantly want a child.

lol, and what, to you, would constitute proof that a woman independantly wanted a child?

Originally posted by Burning thought
And yes they can be socially brain washed to get fullfillment, it happens all the time doesnt it, especially in the young when a child wants a toy in an advertisement just because it looks nice in the images they get amount of fullfillment out of gaining it. Fashion is another one for older people, Fashion designers make people want to buy their products, they make them feel out of place with soceity if they dont fullfill their fashion "needs" and then by gaining that item the person feels good about themselves, even if it is just a ploy from Fashion designers/merchants for their products to be bought and they dont care about the faceless unknown people and how they look in the products.

Popularity is another sad depravity of the social view which is a good example of gaining fullfillment. If someone is not populour or does not feel they are they get upset, wheras if they are "populour" they feel good about themselves, they get fullfillment. Even if their a massively fake person, there are many people who are massively fake, if youve ever seen that "sweet sixteen" program, you can see how the younger generations gain fullfillment out of the view that their populour just because they happen to have a massive list of people going to their parties, they dont sit down it seems and think "well none of these people hardly even know me, their just using me and my party for entertainment", they simply think of how populour they are, which ofc is a fake soceity view but a potent one.

what would you say the social influences of being unpopular are?

obviously I disagree with all of this. It is juvenille, especially in the light of the most basic developmental psychology.

For instance, you speak a language, you developed it from social interaction, thus, you are a drone. ta da!

Originally posted by Burning thought
Independants are variable because they can choose as they will.

so, I thought of a couple of ways about how to respond to this. I think the best way is to sort of explain how I think it is emblematic of how you respond to things.

For instance: I said the term "independant variable" almost specifically because I didn't think you would get it. And you didn't. An IV is the variable in an experiment (like you glibly said you were running) which is manipulated in order to produce changes in the Dependant variable (what is measured). You can be excused for not knowing this. I don't think its excuseable for you to have not even taken the 30 seconds that would have been necessary to look it up on wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_variable).

Now, like I said, I can't expect you to know anything that I know, especially stuff that I know is rarified within certain fields of study, but you totally disregarded what I put, and answered it with some ambigious nonsense about "independents" and "choice". From any realistic stand point, what you said might as well have been "Durps are durp because they can durp to durp".

I know what it is like to be 19 and really smart, just calm down and keep reading. There really are people out there who are trying to, empirically look at what you are talking about. There are 1000s of articles, especially in feminist literature, about why women have children. You need to learn the barest of humility, lest you think, at 19, you have access to some knowledge or logic that nobody knows.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, all those women, being slaves to their hormone

No difference between them at all

All just breeding machines that love having themz children

You guys didn't realize it's the 21st century, right? Just a tip, if you ever encounter one, we also don't think ******* are stupid anymore.

Let me know when you encounter one. When you do, let me know when they talk about having kids, start crying when you say you don't want any, and kick you in the nuts after breaking up with you for being a selfish prick.

Don't act like you're superior to them because you have no clue. They're just as right, if no more right, than you are. I'll let that last comment gestate (yes, I used that word on purpose) with you and maybe you'll understand what I'm getting at.

He was quite obviously being sarcastic, you fool.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
He was quite obviously being sarcastic, you fool.

How the **** does my post indicate that I missed his sarcasm? You're post doesn't even make sense IF you read my post, fool.



Edit-I see now. You didn't understand my post at all. You think I'm arguing that his post was correct on the first three points. Dude, get some sleep.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
He was quite obviously being sarcastic, you fool.

He was quite obviously talking about *******, you fool.

313

Originally posted by dadudemon
Let me know when you encounter one. When you do, let me know when they talk about having kids, start crying when you say you don't want any, and kick you in the nuts after breaking up with you for being a selfish prick.

Don't act like you're superior to them because you have no clue. They're just as right, if no more right, than you are. I'll let that last comment gestate (yes, I used that word on purpose) with you and maybe you'll understand what I'm getting at. Well, my girlfriend, for one, doesn't want children.

I have a few female friends that don't want children.

The generalization was idiotic on their part. And I stand by that.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
He was quite obviously talking about *******, you fool.

313 Indeed...negroes and stuff.

Ah right, sorry if I misunderstood and for calling you a fool, dadudemon. I have had plenty of sleep, actually, so don't be worrying too much about that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, my girlfriend, for one, doesn't want children.

I have a few female friends that don't want children.

The generalization was idiotic on their part. And I stand by that.

Indeed...negroes and stuff.


Great that your current girlfriend doesn't currently want children. Enjoy that while you can.

How old is she?(rhetorical) What about when she's 25?

30?

What about another girlfriend's opinion if you don't stay with Sarah?


I read more in this thread and I realize that you weren't arguing about the modern women not having those base desires, rather, you were arguing a more neutral position that some want children and some don't. Cool. That's true.

However, it has been my experience that the vast majority of women want children at one point or another. Eventually, "that" conversation comes up and it can be do or die sometimes.













Looking back, I would have waited until I was 24 to start on the two children that I currently have. They are an m-er f-in hand full. I could go on with stories on why NOT to have children, but George gave and excellent reason of why no too.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Ah right, sorry if I misunderstood and for calling you a fool, dadudemon. I have had plenty of sleep, actually, so don't be worrying too much about that.

Cool. I thought that a mistake like that was below you and figured it could only be a lack of sleep because you don't sleep a full 8 hours all the time....you're up later than I am, sometimes.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Great that your current girlfriend doesn't currently want children. Enjoy that while you can.

How old is she?(rhetorical) What about when she's 25?

30?

What about another girlfriend's opinion if you don't stay with Sarah?


I read more in this thread and I realize that you weren't arguing about the modern women not having those base desires, rather, you were arguing a more neutral position that some want children and some don't. Cool. That's true.

However, it has been my experience that the vast majority of women want children at one point or another. Eventually, "that" conversation comes up and it can be do or die sometimes.













Looking back, I would have waited until I was 24 to start on the two children that I currently have. They are an m-er f-in hand full. I could go on with stories on why NOT to have children, but George gave and excellent reason of why no too.

Well, you hit the nail on the head. I was arguing against a generalization of all women, to desiring children as their highest goals. If you want to argue for that, please produce some evidence. Because there ARE women who never want children and don't regret it.

You apparently just jumped to conclusions based on my, initial, satirical post. No worries, I get you don't mean it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, you hit the nail on the head. I was arguing against a generalization of all women, to desiring children as their highest goals. If you want to argue for that, please produce some evidence. Because there ARE women who never want children and don't regret it.

You apparently just jumped to conclusions based on my, initial, satirical post. No worries, I get you don't mean it.

My evidence is only anecdotal, as I've indicated already. However, any desire to be with the opposite sex, sexually, would be your scientific evidence for wanting children, regardless of the individual realizing that they're just falling for millions of years of evolutionary urges that preserve the species. True that the modern woman/man prevent and even mitigate pregnancies, but that doesn't change the fact that the sexes are driven to each other for reproductive purposes. I'm sure that there has to be some sort of physiological reason women desire children more vocally (or more often than naught) than men. Surely it's not all social mores, is it?

Also, initially, it looked like you were making a case for the "modern woman" who doesn't want children because it would cramp her style and career. My initial post should be clear that that was my interpretation of your original post.

Originally posted by dadudemon
My evidence is only anecdotal, as I've indicated already. However, any desire to be with the opposite sex, sexually, would be your scientific evidence for wanting children, regardless of the individual realizing that they're just falling for millions of years of evolutionary urges that preserve the species. True that the modern woman/man prevent and even mitigate pregnancies, but that doesn't change the fact that the sexes are driven to each other for reproductive purposes. I'm sure that there has to be some sort of physiological reason women desire children more vocally (or more often than naught) than men. Surely it's not all social mores, is it?

Also, initially, it looked like you were making a case for the "modern woman" who doesn't want children because it would cramp her style and career. My initial post should be clear that that was my interpretation of your original post. Look, your anectodical evidence, doesn't mean much. Since I never said that there's not many girls that do feel getting children is a huge part in their lives. You, for some reason, by choosing to argue with me, took the chance that all or close to all are, that's an extraordinary claim.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Look, your anectodical evidence, doesn't mean much. Since I never said that there's not many girls that do feel getting children is a huge part in their lives. You, for some reason, by choosing to argue with me, took the chance that all or close to all are, that's an extraordinary claim.


No, I never claimed that all or close to all. In fact, I initially claimed that a majority desired children. (Evidenced by my "both right...more right" comment)

You're confusing me for the thread starter, holmes.

I later claimed that a vast majority desired children...based on my experiences.

Since your claim of NOT desiring children occurs primarily in developed countries*, and I live in a developed country surrounded by working women(despite the fact the IT is ridiculously male dominant), you'd think that I would have seen more of the "no children" types, right? I have...but they almost all later change their mind. Something happens to women as they get older...it's almost like a calm panic. I guess it's primarily psychological for them: wanting to have children before their junk stops working.

*I ain't googlin' that shit. It's true, plain and simple. Look for your own evidence if it isn't obvious enough for you.

yea not all but the majority but its like almost all or anything, just more do want children at some point then dont.

Originally posted by jalek moye
yea not all but the majority but its like almost all or anything, just more do want children at some point then dont.

exactley, and my only question is what makes a women not want children (breaking through into independance) OR what makes a women want children so much? (social/instincual values), what ime wondering is there anyone who can give me reasons for a women to want children without it be instincual/social, and do they stillwant them to the extent that they are everything to them like the social/insintcual mums?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, my girlfriend, for one, doesn't want children.

I have a few female friends that don't want children.


Then why dont you simply ask them why they dont want children (unless you already know) and find out the reason why then I would have an answer to my question.

The facti s, the overall moral/social view is for a women to have a child and usually its seen as the most special thing, my answer is "why" this is, and if its actually any more than just insintcual social control, but i was also interested in reasons behind women not wanting children.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, and what, to you, would constitute proof that a woman independantly wanted a child?



what would you say the social influences of being unpopular are?

obviously I disagree with all of this. It is juvenille, especially in the light of the most basic developmental psychology.

For instance, you speak a language, you developed it from social interaction, thus, you are a drone. ta da!



so, I thought of a couple of ways about how to respond to this. I think the best way is to sort of explain how I think it is emblematic of how you respond to things.

For instance: I said the term "independant variable" almost specifically because I didn't think you would get it. And you didn't. An IV is the variable in an experiment (like you glibly said you were running) which is manipulated in order to produce changes in the Dependant variable (what is measured). You can be excused for not knowing this. I don't think its excuseable for you to have not even taken the 30 seconds that would have been necessary to look it up on wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_variable).

Now, like I said, I can't expect you to know anything that I know, especially stuff that I know is rarified within certain fields of study, but you totally disregarded what I put, and answered it with some ambigious nonsense about "independents" and "choice". From any realistic stand point, what you said might as well have been "Durps are durp because they can durp to durp".

I know what it is like to be 19 and really smart, just calm down and keep reading. There really are people out there who are trying to, empirically look at what you are talking about. There are 1000s of articles, especially in feminist literature, about why women have children. You need to learn the barest of humility, lest you think, at 19, you have access to some knowledge or logic that nobody knows.

Human reasons, for example for sex, a guy who was a drone would simply say he wants to fulfill his sex drive, wheras a more indepenant less instinctual view would be he wanted to feel "love"from the person he was having sex with, and he could also state why he loves them, i.e, perhaps they were childhood friends, perhaps they were always there fro him, etc etc, not just "i want to have sex cuz it feels good". thats more of a instinct.

socail influences of being unpopulour would likely lead to less social ideals or simply a diffrent sect of popularity, this could branch into joining those like you who were rejected by a social group and so make your own group, often this is forming social groups like "Goths", "Emos" (there is actually a social group who call themslves this although their not the slitting wrists kind, their mostly just similiar to goths), or lets say it was a Nerd who was hated by the apprently "populour" group who then joined a Nerdy social group. This reflects more light on how the social view of popualrity is broken because obviously from diffrent points of view from diffrent social groups, other groups are less populour to them. Popularity on a whole is fake.

You are wrong, you are obviously looking at it crooked, ime talking about when a Human actually understands what its doing ,a baby for example you could say is the first stage when you start to learn various things from social interaction, but when your a baby, your simply a basic animal human organism, your mind is not a complicated system compared to a 12-16 year olds which could actually understand decision making. Its the same when your growing up into a toddler, very basic. Ime calling people who should be able to independantly learn/think/make their own decisions yet dont because they instead join social patterns completly, to an extent where you are a drone, a being who simply follows a social pattern and if it changes so do you regardless of how it effects you.

You said something that you didnt think I would get...that sounds useful.....

At 19 i do have access to information drones wouldnt know, simply because Drones would not be looking for it.

Dadudemon is argueing exactley what ime argueing, most women do indeed socially want children and to most women, you either have a child with them or your gone, you either see the children above all else, or your gone, you either change yourself so the children are happier even if you feel terrible, or your gone, etc etc, you know the drill (this answer is to both inimalist and Bardock)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Cool. I thought that a mistake like that was below you and figured it could only be a lack of sleep because you don't sleep a full 8 hours all the time....you're up later than I am, sometimes.

I'm suffering with a pretty bad bout of bronchitis, which I am going to blame it on.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, I never claimed that all or close to all. In fact, I initially claimed that a majority desired children. (Evidenced by my "both right...more right" comment)

You're confusing me for the thread starter, holmes.

I later claimed that a vast majority desired children...based on my experiences.

Since your claim of NOT desiring children occurs primarily in developed countries*, and I live in a developed country surrounded by working women(despite the fact the IT is ridiculously male dominant), you'd think that I would have seen more of the "no children" types, right? I have...but they almost all later change their mind. Something happens to women as they get older...it's almost like a calm panic. I guess it's primarily psychological for them: wanting to have children before their junk stops working.

*I ain't googlin' that shit. It's true, plain and simple. Look for your own evidence if it isn't obvious enough for you. Dude, whatever, just don't go off on me solely because you have no clue what's going on.

Burning Thought: Considering you don't quote or reference to which part of my post any of this is responding to, I'm a little bit lost at parts. I'm going to assume you just went top to bottom, and I'll tell you what I think you are addressing.

If you want to make a point about what I've said, just copy/paste the tags at the beginning and end of the statement and respond to it directly, it is way more managable than a block of text that could refer to any part.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Human reasons, for example for sex, a guy who was a drone would simply say he wants to fulfill his sex drive, wheras a more indepenant less instinctual view would be he wanted to feel "love"from the person he was having sex with, and he could also state why he loves them, i.e, perhaps they were childhood friends, perhaps they were always there fro him, etc etc, not just "i want to have sex cuz it feels good". thats more of a instinct.

oh, ok, this is easy.

you don't understand human descision making processes. The explanations that we consciously have for our actions largely are not congruent with the reason our brain's produced those actions. The mind is incredible at lying to itself (a quality abscent in those with depression).

if all that it takes to show a woman had a baby for personal rather than social reasons, in your view, would be to find a woman who personally believes they wanted a child, then I know my mother fits this for one, and I would assume the vast majority of women who have children, have had children, and that are going to have children. Remember, most women rate their relationship with their child as more important than their spouse.

you bring up instinct as if you even know what it is about. So, in light of neuroplasticity, how do YOU distinguish between social and genetic influences of behaviour?

Originally posted by Burning thought
socail influences of being unpopulour would likely lead to less social ideals or simply a diffrent sect of popularity,

lol

I'm more inclined to think it might cause a person to, I don't know, think anyone who is popular is a drone?

I wont psychoanalyze you, as its not my schtick, however, you rant like someone who never made enough friends and people didn't like. As if that isn't going to be just as influencial on your personality as being popular would be.

Originally posted by Burning thought
this could branch into joining those like you who were rejected by a social group and so make your own group, often this is forming social groups like "Goths", "Emos" (there is actually a social group who call themslves this although their not the slitting wrists kind, their mostly just similiar to goths), or lets say it was a Nerd who was hated by the apprently "populour" group who then joined a Nerdy social group.

oh, would you please tell me more about your theories of social bonding and attachment!

needless to say, cliques, out-groups, social popularity, social skills and the like, are described much better in social psychological literature than they are above.

Originally posted by Burning thought
This reflects more light on how the social view of popualrity is broken because obviously from diffrent points of view from diffrent social groups, other groups are less populour to them.

again, not to seem like a dick, but is english your first language? I am having trouble discecting this...

Originally posted by Burning thought
Popularity on a whole is fake.

lol, fake in the way that it still has an effect on personal development?

real fake or wait, why don't you define how you are using the term fake.

Originally posted by Burning thought
You are wrong, you are obviously looking at it crooked,

could you allude to the statement I made that was "wrong"?

Originally posted by Burning thought
ime talking about when a Human actually understands what its doing, a baby for example you could say is the first stage when you start to learn various things from social interaction, but when your a baby, your simply a basic animal human organism,

gibberish. All you have said of any worth in this passage is that babies are in their initial stages of learning. While I could point you to instances of some types of innate knowledge (categorical perception), the statement itself is nearly tautological.

also, all humans are humans, all humans are animals and all humans are organisms (also comprised of billions of organisms). The term "animal human organism" is doubly redundant.

Originally posted by Burning thought
your mind is not a complicated system compared to a 12-16 year olds which could actually understand decision making.

amazingly enough, the mind of a developing infant is potentially orders of magnitude more complex than an adult or teenage mind.

if you don't believe me, just quote this and I'll get it in a reply. It has to do with neuroplasticity though

Originally posted by Burning thought
Its the same when your growing up into a toddler, very basic. Ime calling people who should be able to independantly learn/think/make their own decisions yet dont because they instead join social patterns completly, to an extent where you are a drone, a being who simply follows a social pattern and if it changes so do you regardless of how it effects you.

so you are making a personal values based judgement against people who do not conform to the way you view the world?

You remind me of these pins that some socialist group was giving out at my school. They had these "free your mind" pins. While freeing the mind (whatever that ambigious rhetoric actually means) is likely a good thing, they weren't actually proposing it at all. They thought all people with freed minds would think the way they did, much like you consider those who have come to different conclusions about life than you a drone.

also, not to drag different threads into eachother, but you chastisized me in the "Was Hitler Evil" thread for being so bold as to morally judge a child murder as evil. How is your subjective judgement of people as drones any different than that? How is this position you are taking here at all congruent with that?

lol, not that you will respond to any of this specifically. go for it, make another block post that I can go through, to which you will again overgeneralize with ambiguities (at least when I add extra words to a sentence they are the proper words that convey the desired meaning )

Originally posted by Burning thought
You said something that you didnt think I would get...that sounds useful.....

actually very useful, as I used your response to point out one of the most lacking parts of your "argumentative" style. notice how you dodged my entire point in using it.

Originally posted by Burning thought
At 19 i do have access to information drones wouldnt know, simply because Drones would not be looking for it.

ya... stuff you make up is not really that valid, especially given that you don't have any formal qualifications to say things like that.

For instance, can you give me a working definition of who is a drone and who isn't? It seems like something you'd know, so how about it? How could I run an experiment to determine if someone is a drone or if someone is not? lol what would the independant variable be?

Originally posted by Burning thought
Dadudemon is argueing exactley what ime argueing, most women do indeed socially want children and to most women, you either have a child with them or your gone, you either see the children above all else, or your gone, you either change yourself so the children are happier even if you feel terrible, or your gone, etc etc, you know the drill (this answer is to both inimalist and Bardock)

1) you have the authority to speak for most women?

2) anti-feminist literature makes the exact opposite argument, stating that in the modern world, women have more pressures to succeed in the ways normally associated with "maleness" (workplace, financially) and are less prone to live in the home and rise children. All demographic statistics support this (potentially ignoring immigrant populations). There are more women today than ever before leaving the home and postponing child bearing or not having children at all. The "Social brainwashing" of feminism, essentially, does what you point to as a sign of independance! omfg!

Originally posted by inimalist
oh, ok, this is easy.

you don't understand human descision making processes. The explanations that we consciously have for our actions largely are not congruent with the reason our brain's produced those actions. The mind is incredible at lying to itself (a quality abscent in those with depression).

if all that it takes to show a woman had a baby for personal rather than social reasons, in your view, would be to find a woman who personally believes they wanted a child, then I know my mother fits this for one, and I would assume the vast majority of women who have children, have had children, and that are going to have children. Remember, most women rate their relationship with their child as more important than their spouse.

Ofcourse I do, a human decision is when you can decide something for yourself, an instinct decision is not really a decision at all but more a feeling to do something yet if someone questions your motives you will not be able to explain completly or logically.

You would have to show me your mothers reasons for wanting the child, if she can give reasons why then perhaps she is not so intinctually/socially controlled. A women who can actually give her independant reasons may be more independant than a social drone. Yes they do rate it above their spouse, another instinct which usually branches on from the drone requirement to have the child.

Originally posted by inimalist
you bring up instinct as if you even know what it is about. So, in light of neuroplasticity, how do YOU distinguish between social and genetic influences of behaviour?

As i think ive explained a social influence is when someone does something because it is socially correct or because their social group does it, if they cannot bring about their own independant or logical reasons then they are a drone in this area.





Originally posted by inimalist
lol

I'm more inclined to think it might cause a person to, I don't know, think anyone who is popular is a drone?

I wont psychoanalyze you, as its not my schtick, however, you rant like someone who never made enough friends and people didn't like. As if that isn't going to be just as influencial on your personality as being popular would be.

I know you would be, it was so very obvious thats where you were trying to go but this is where you failed miserably since popularity is simply social, a fake ideal to control youth, popularity means little overall and is actually fake as ive said because those who belive their populour belive so just because the amount of contacts they would have on an instant messenger, a social site like bebo, or how many friends they bring to parties.





Originally posted by inimalist
oh, would you please tell me more about your theories of social bonding and attachment!

needless to say, cliques, out-groups, social popularity, social skills and the like, are described much better in social psychological literature than they are above.

Then please post some otherwise ime not sure what your saying here means much to the debate.



again, not to seem like a dick, but is english your first language? I am having trouble discecting this...

Not at all a dick, you dont understand something, at least you can point it out.

Ill explain it:

basically the ideal of popularity is splintered because there are so many diffrent social groups, Nerds, Goths etc etc, and they all have diffrent views of popularity.



Originally posted by inimalist
lol, fake in the way that it still has an effect on personal development?

real fake or wait, why don't you define how you are using the term fake.

Fake in the way that it doesnt mean anything, a group of Nerds would think one of their friends or themselves are populour because they have other nerdy friends wheras a group of jocks, goths etc etc would think the same of their soceity yet belive the "nerd" to be unpopulour, the idea of popularity is fake because it makes people belive in something that doesnt excist, them being loved/liked beyond someone else reasures the arrogent yet in truth the people who they belive are love/liking them are free loaders, eg. a group of people invited to a party are added to the overall popularity gauge of a person, if that person belives the people he/she invites are going because of them which is often the case, they belive its popularit and they feel good about it. But ofcourse that is not the case, the people invited are going to enjoy themselves, it does not matter whos party it really is especially large parties. yet one of the goofy friends of the one who started the party is likely to think that the starter of the party is populour because of the amount of people they had been able to invite.





Originally posted by inimalist
could you allude to the statement I made that was "wrong"?

Your wrong because you said I would be a drone because I learnt a language from childhood, your wrong because a baby/toddler does not have the intelligence to truly make their own decisions yet, toddlers/babies are excempt from dronage.



Originally posted by inimalist
gibberish. All you have said of any worth in this passage is that babies are in their initial stages of learning. While I could point you to instances of some types of innate knowledge (categorical perception), the statement itself is nearly tautological.

also, all humans are humans, all humans are animals and all humans are organisms (also comprised of billions of organisms). The term "animal human organism" is doubly redundant.

Not at all, a baby has no idea of what its doing, it cannot be a drone since it never had the choice in the first place nor the intelligence to make it.

A basic human organism, the main thing is "basic" your simply basic as a baby because your an animal to the highest degree, a human baby is not far diffrent from any animals baby wheras older humans are vastly diffrent from adult animals.






Originally posted by inimalist
amazingly enough, the mind of a developing infant is potentially orders of magnitude more complex than an adult or teenage mind.

if you don't believe me, just quote this and I'll get it in a reply. It has to do with neuroplasticity though


You miss the point, the baby simply cannot understand a decision, nor make a real decison for itself....



Originally posted by inimalist
so you are making a personal values based judgement against people who do not conform to the way you view the world?

You remind me of these pins that some socialist group was giving out at my school. They had these "free your mind" pins. While freeing the mind (whatever that ambigious rhetoric actually means) is likely a good thing, they weren't actually proposing it at all. They thought all people with freed minds would think the way they did, much like you consider those who have come to different conclusions about life than you a drone.

also, not to drag different threads into eachother, but you chastisized me in the "Was Hitler Evil" thread for being so bold as to morally judge a child murder as evil. How is your subjective judgement of people as drones any different than that? How is this position you are taking here at all congruent with that?

Its nothing about viewing things diffrently, since those in the social group rarely do, thats the point isnt it, those people who simply follow a social ideal are not thinking for themselves.

Because you judged by use of social moral, people have no right to simply judge, however ime not judging them as drones, ime simply listning them as what they are under my own label of "drone". These people are the ones doing the actions, ime simply labeling them.

Originally posted by inimalist
actually very useful, as I used your response to point out one of the most lacking parts of your "argumentative" style. notice how you dodged my entire point in using it.



ya... stuff you make up is not really that valid, especially given that you don't have any formal qualifications to say things like that.

For instance, can you give me a working definition of who is a drone and who isn't? It seems like something you'd know, so how about it? How could I run an experiment to determine if someone is a drone or if someone is not? lol what would the independant variable be?



1) you have the authority to speak for most women?

2) anti-feminist literature makes the exact opposite argument, stating that in the modern world, women have more pressures to succeed in the ways normally associated with "maleness" (workplace, financially) and are less prone to live in the home and rise children. All demographic statistics support this (potentially ignoring immigrant populations). There are more women today than ever before leaving the home and postponing child bearing or not having children at all. The "Social brainwashing" of feminism, essentially, does what you point to as a sign of independance! omfg!

Ive made nothing up but the use of the word drone. Everything else can be seen by anyone who bothers looking at social patterns, you can see the way things are viewed socially just by watching a lot of film types, especially films for teens that involve sex,drugs etc, you can watch comedies like family guy which pokes fun at the way people act because thats the way they do.

A person who is a drone will follow social ideals, for example: Bobs friends smoke, so Bob decides to smoke because the ideal of popularity makes him feel like he wont fit in with the guys who all smoke, thus this leads Bob to smoke. Becci's friends follow Fashion A, but Fashion A changes to Fashion B, her friends change to Fashion B, so does Becci because her friends do, popularity can play a part in this as well, since obvously she would think herself unpopulour if shes not following fashion and so she wears Fashion B, regardless of many outside sources less interested in Fashion saying she looks ridiculous. In the end, that person, being a drone is Becci, since she is not only following these ideals but she could not answer why she follows them, obviously she would not admit to being a pack animal following the crowd because it sounds foolish but she could not say otherwise.

An independant thinks for itself, if Fashion B looks odd to them, they wont wear it, simple, if they like it, wear Fashion B but it changes to Fashion C, they wont chase after Fashion C unless it looks far nicer than B, they would also be able to give reasons for their preferances and they would not include the fact their friends changed in those reasons.

1) I have the authority to give my opinion, I have to authority to point people in the direction of where they should be able to see combinations of social behavior i.e a colledge/high school etc. The fact is, so far no women or defender of such can give reasons why a women would want a child without instinct/social beliefs taking a toll. The fact both of those things excist show that without explanation technically a woman who has a child and especially if they view it as far above anything else like their spouse is a drone.

2) Well obviously this literature needs to be seen, since both me and Dadudemon have shown that we both see so many women who want children even if its a little later than usual, they still dont feel apprently "complete" without them as danaoula hime mentioned something about in his/her first post.

Oh, so you are a renowned sociologist and psychologist?

so basically all he's saying is that if a women wants to have a child for the simple reason that they want to they are nothing more then a drone.

So if anybody does anything with out an over complicated reason they are drones

my God, at least quote some Asch at me or something... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments]

this may become another "sharia courts" thing for me, but I'll try to look up the stuff about social influences.

Burning Thought: ummm, if I post peer-reviewed empirical studies of human behaviour, is that a valid counter-point to your independant observations? Like, say I find a study that describes inter-personal bonding in relation to mere exposure and proximity, and not to things like "being cool", do you think it has more authority than your personal beliefs?

EDIT: Oh, I think you missed above. How could I run an experiment to determine if someone is a drone or not? What are objective characteristics of "drone" which both you and I could confirm. So like, there would be no disagreement if me and you observed someone whether or not they would meet your criteria.

Originally posted by jalek moye
So if anybody does anything with out an over complicated reason they are drones

heaven forbid they do something because they enjoy it or want to

how inferior those people must be

Originally posted by jalek moye
so basically all he's saying is that if a women wants to have a child for the simple reason that they want to they are nothing more then a drone.

So if anybody does anything with out an over complicated reason they are drones


Yes because if they "just want to" for no apprent reason, their following instinct...obviously....you dont just "want to" do something. Theres usually reasons.

Everything someone does they could be able to explain a reason why, if they dont then their doing it because of soceity or perhaps instinct.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh, so you are a renowned sociologist and psychologist?

Who needs renown?

theres a guy up in the Hadron collider project who is claimed to be as clever as Hawking, but hes nowhere near as famous. Fame is yet another one of those fake things that people throw around to try and impress people, it doesnt occur to them that many celebrities who are famous are complete idiots.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh, so you are a renowned sociologist and psychologist?

See, Strawhawkian, told you.

Originally posted by Burning thought



Who needs renown?

theres a guy up in the Hadron collider project who is claimed to be as clever as Hawking, but hes nowhere near as famous. Fame is yet another one of those fake things that people throw around to try and impress people, it doesnt occur to them that many celebrities who are famous are complete idiots.

Meh, I agree, generally, but since you have not produced anything close to proof of anything, but only statements based on **** all, I figured I'd go for the second best, which would be at least some professional acceptance.

Originally posted by Burning thought
theres a guy up in the Hadron collider project who is claimed to be as clever as Hawking, but hes nowhere near as famous. Fame is yet another one of those fake things that people throw around to try and impress people, it doesnt occur to them that many celebrities who are famous are complete idiots.

I'm sorry, do you consider yourself to be even remotely qualified to make sweeping statements about any facet of human behaviour?

Like, would you consider yourself "knowledgeable" about "psychology"?

Originally posted by Burning thought
Yes because if they "just want to" for no apprent reason, their following instinct...obviously....you dont just "want to" do something. Theres usually reasons.

Everything someone does they could be able to explain a reason why, if they dont then their doing it because of soceity or perhaps instinct.

All your theory is is a very juvenile and narrow minded version of determinism.

Originally posted by Robtard
See, Strawhawkian, told you.

seems so, but do we know if he is a law student?

Originally posted by inimalist
my God, at least quote some Asch at me or something... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments]

this may become another "sharia courts" thing for me, but I'll try to look up the stuff about social influences.

Burning Thought: ummm, if I post peer-reviewed empirical studies of human behaviour, is that a valid counter-point to your independant observations? Like, say I find a study that describes inter-personal bonding in relation to mere exposure and proximity, and not to things like "being cool", do you think it has more authority than your personal beliefs?

EDIT: Oh, I think you missed above. How could I run an experiment to determine if someone is a drone or not? What are objective characteristics of "drone" which both you and I could confirm. So like, there would be no disagreement if me and you observed someone whether or not they would meet your criteria.

Thats a fairly good example. But I shouldnt need to give you information on social behavior since I assume you dont live under a rock....do you?



If you can find a study that shows me that a woman or a person in general can do things independantly without any obvious instinctual/soceity view and give reasons for it then I will be pleased. But remember my main question is to whether or not a woman can give reasons for wanting to have a child and having it more important than anything else in their life while proving social/instinctual views dont come into play then you may have something of interest.

Been around a bit long to be Starhawk, though the likeness is startling. Perhaps it's his sociology student brother?

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Been around a bit long to be Starhawk, though the likeness is startling. Perhaps it's his sociology student brother?

Originally posted by inimalist
seems so, but do we know if he is a law student?

Not saying it is for certain, but the MO is uncanny.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Meh, I agree, generally, but since you have not produced anything close to proof of anything, but only statements based on **** all, I figured I'd go for the second best, which would be at least some professional acceptance.

I asked you earlier to show me the reasons for your own girfriend not wanting children, did you see it or ignore that question?

Statements based on the overall activities of human beings, both me and Dadudemon have shown reasons, what are you looking for? some random report. You could just look at most programs and reality shows to see the sad little fakeness edged into the minds of most people, and that fakeness is derived from social/instinct means

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm sorry, do you consider yourself to be even remotely qualified to make sweeping statements about any facet of human behaviour?

Like, would you consider yourself "knowledgeable" about "psychology"?


Can you give me a reaosn why a qualification means much of anything?

to gain a qualification you simply need to have the right random grades and then get the job of psychologist, I know many friends who do Psychology and personally I can often read people, I think looking into peoples minds is fairly easy especially when its staring you in the face.

Originally posted by Burning thought
I think looking into peoples minds is fairly easy especially when its staring you in the face.

George W. Bush wants his line back.

I was not even aware the man said something like that, interesting however

Originally posted by Burning thought
I was not even aware the man said something like that, interesting however

He said it in regards to Putin I believe, then again, George Bush can really come off as a completely hopeless imbecile.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Thats a fairly good example. But I shouldnt need to give you information on social behavior since I assume you dont live under a rock....do you?

LOL!

that study was proof of what you are saying. I have now contributed more proof to support your position than you have.

and yes, you would have to provide me with information. Else you are just making things up based on your biased account of the world.

In the real world, where people want real answers, rather than (and chilli put it best) juvenile ambiguities, you NEED to be able to show why you are correct. You need to do it in a way that, even if I ran some observations without you, I would be able to come to the exact same conclusions. Science, baby kisses.

Originally posted by Burning thought
If you can find a study that shows me that a woman or a person in general can do things independantly without any obvious instinctual/soceity view and give reasons for it then I will be pleased. But remember my main question is to whether or not a woman can give reasons for wanting to have a child and having it more important than anything else in their life while proving social/instinctual views dont come into play then you may have something of interest.

lol

umm wow.

needless to say, no studies will show that, because it is a) based of your subjective interpretation of what a drone is and b) thats not actually how things work or the argument I've been making.

I would (and hopefully will) argue that there is no way to distinguish between "socially motivated" choices/development/etc and "internally/genetically/personally/etc" generated ones. In fact, the distinction between external and internal development are illusorary and based on ideas lost decades ago in psychology.

Ive said neuroplasticity 3 times now (at least). I REALLY suggest you look it up.

Originally posted by Robtard
He said it in regards to Putin I believe, then again, George Bush can really come off as a completely hopeless imbecile.

Burning thought shares that gift.

Originally posted by Burning thought
I asked you earlier to show me the reasons for your own girfriend not wanting children, did you see it or ignore that question?

Statements based on the overall activities of human beings, both me and Dadudemon have shown reasons, what are you looking for? some random report. You could just look at most programs and reality shows to see the sad little fakeness edged into the minds of most people, and that fakeness is derived from social/instinct means



Ignored


Both you and dadudemon have given anecdotal evidence. DDM at least admitted it.

Originally posted by inimalist
LOL!

that study was proof of what you are saying. I have now contributed more proof to support your position than you have.

and yes, you would have to provide me with information. Else you are just making things up based on your biased account of the world.

In the real world, where people want real answers, rather than (and chilli put it best) juvenile ambiguities, you NEED to be able to show why you are correct. You need to do it in a way that, even if I ran some observations without you, I would be able to come to the exact same conclusions. Science, baby kisses.



lol

umm wow.

needless to say, no studies will show that, because it is a) based of your subjective interpretation of what a drone is and b) thats not actually how things work or the argument I've been making.

I would (and hopefully will) argue that there is no way to distinguish between "socially motivated" choices/development/etc and "internally/genetically/personally/etc" generated ones. In fact, the distinction between external and internal development are illusorary and based on ideas lost decades ago in psychology.

Ive said neuroplasticity 3 times now (at least). I REALLY suggest you look it up.

Its an example of what I am saying, fact does not really need proof, since proof can be found for this in most reality shows, comedies laughing at the way people are etc etc.

You can easily see how ime correct in the fact that people do act like what ive stated, people are manipulated by soceity and you can see it in many areas but mostly in colledges/universities and find out by talking to people of varying ages.

Ive looked it up many times, quote from the wiki article what is relevent to your point?

Originally posted by Burning thought
Yes because if they "just want to" for no apprent reason, their following instinct...obviously....you dont just "want to" do something. Theres usually reasons.

Everything someone does they could be able to explain a reason why, if they dont then their doing it because of soceity or perhaps instinct.



ok so i listen to manowar because i want to and like them

there is no other reason my society didnt program me to cuz i dont know anybody else who listens to them i found them out by accident

o i'm drone for that too because i dont have a reason for liking them

Originally posted by Burning thought
Its an example of what I am saying, fact does not really need proof, since proof can be found for this in most reality shows, comedies laughing at the way people are etc etc.

You can easily see how ime correct in the fact that people do act like what ive stated, people are manipulated by soceity and you can see it in many areas but mostly in colledges/universities and find out by talking to people of varying ages.

Ive looked it up many times, quote from the wiki article what is relevent to your point?

Your proof is in reality tv and comedy shows?

Good luck convincing anyone who knows anything about the fields of psychology and sociology.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Ignored


Both you and dadudemon have given anecdotal evidence. DDM at least admitted it.

i thought so lol....follows in with exactley what I thought, regardless of your nay saying I can find so much information from this alone.

The evidence shows how people act however, you can find out by talking to people, by watching reality shows etc. A scientific study is simply what me and DDM has already done, only diffrence is the scientist has the title "scientist" but any fool can understand people being manipulated by soceity or instinctual notions.

Originally posted by Burning thought
The evidence shows how people act however, you can find out by talking to people, by watching reality shows etc. A scientific study is simply what me and DDM has already done, only diffrence is the scientist has the title "scientist" but any fool can understand people being manipulated by soceity or instinctual notions.

No you haven't.

Originally posted by jalek moye
ok so i listen to manowar because i want to and like them

there is no other reason my society didnt program me to cuz i dont know anybody else who listens to them i found them out by accident

o i'm drone for that too because i dont have a reason for liking them




If theyve done nothing to make you like them yet you do anyway, then ime not sure what that is, its not Drone, its simply the fact you probably dont know the reason but if nobody in your soceity likes/knows them then you cant be a drone and a human doesnt have instinct to listen to music

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
No you haven't.

Indeed we have, we have seen what people do/say and so we can make our mind up on those people, its a study on what people do, you can find out from almost anywhere.

Originally posted by Burning thought
i thought so lol....follows in with exactley what I thought, regardless of your nay saying I can find so much information from this alone.

The evidence shows how people act however, you can find out by talking to people, by watching reality shows etc. A scientific study is simply what me and DDM has already done, only diffrence is the scientist has the title "scientist" but any fool can understand people being manipulated by soceity or instinctual notions.

Another trait you sare with dadudemon.

Y-you take "reality shows" as a bar of measurement? Are you silly? And no, you stating shit, based on MTV, is not the same as a scientific study.

Originally posted by Burning thought

Can you give me a reaosn why a qualification means much of anything?

in this instance it would mean you aren't making things up, have at least a passing familiarity with the concepts, and more abstractly, would have a much less generalized understanding of human behaviour.

Originally posted by Burning thought
to gain a qualification you simply need to have the right random grades


re: I have no post secondary education AND no experience in the field of psychology

random grades? so you can write me a "random" paper about the neuroscientific explanations behind Stockholm Syndrome? Since it means nothing to be educated in these things, obvously some random person could do it.

man, you are a case study in cognitive dissonance

Originally posted by Burning thought
and then get the job of psychologist,

psychology is a little bit more expansive than those who call themselves "psychologists".

Originally posted by Burning thought
I know many friends who do Psychology

so I can claim expertise in things my friends are interested in?

hello! I'm a freaking expert guitar player and know way more about music than any of you!

Originally posted by Burning thought
and personally I can often read people,

but you can't explain why that is an ability common to most humans, nor can you name a single experiment where this ability has been tested, nor do you have any idea what the limitations of this ability might be... etc.

what you can do, like everyone else, is form opinions of people. congrads!

Originally posted by Burning thought
I think looking into peoples minds is fairly easy especially when its staring you in the face.

1) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

2) you have essentially just admitted your ignorance

3) easy = Propagator theory of brain dynamics is generalized to incorporate a new class of patchy propagators that enable treatment of approximately periodic structures such as are seen in the visual cortex. Complex response fields are also incorporated to allow for features such as orientation preference and wave-number selectivity. The results are applied to the corticothalamic system associated with the primary visual cortex. It is found that this system can generate gamma ( > or = 30 Hz) oscillations during stimulation, whose properties are consistent with experimental findings on gamma frequency and bandwidth, and existence of fine-scale spatial structure. It is found that a potential resonance is associated with each reciprocal lattice vector corresponding to periodic modulations of the propagators. It is found that the lowest resonances are the most likely to give rise to noticeable spectral peaks and increases of correlation amplitude, length, and time, and that these aspects are prominent only if the system is close to marginal stability, in accord with previous measurements and discussions of cortical stability. These features also enable gamma resonances to be stimulus-evoked, with substantial resonance sharpening for relatively small changes in mean neural firing rate. The results also imply dependence of gamma frequency on stimulus features.



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16711833

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Your proof is in reality tv and comedy shows?

Good luck convincing anyone who knows anything.

Fix'd

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Fix'd

Haha, good call.

Originally posted by Burning thought
If theyve done nothing to make you like them yet you do anyway, then ime not sure what that is, its not Drone, its simply the fact you probably dont know the reason but if nobody in your soceity likes/knows them then you cant be a drone and a human doesnt have instinct to listen to music

well iused it as an example of the fact that you can want to do something or like somthing and not really have a reason

a women can want a child just because she wants to have one, thats not being a drone its making a decsion. I guess you're a drone for having friends and realationsships as well.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Indeed we have, we have seen what people do/say and so we can make our mind up on those people, its a study on what people do, you can find out from almost anywhere.

what was the null hypothesis?

Ive asked you 3 times now for an independent variable.

in the most literal of senses, you need both of those before what you are doing even approaches science, or an experiment.

Originally posted by inimalist
in this instance it would mean you aren't making things up, have at least a passing familiarity with the concepts, and more abstractly, would have a much less generalized understanding of human behaviour.

Explain this one to me please, how would having a qualifcation mean that? Being a psychologist is just a Job, you gain the job by having qualifcations to gain that job, qualifcations which could be just as random as history/geography like which I have.



Originally posted by inimalist
re: I have no post secondary education AND no experience in the field of psychology

random grades? so you can write me a "random" paper about the neuroscientific explanations behind Stockholm Syndrome? Since it means nothing to be educated in these things, obvously some random person could do it.

I could write that paper given a time to look through the subject of Stockholm Syndrome, anyone can do that.



Originally posted by inimalist
1. psychology is a little bit more expansive than those who call themselves "psychologists".



2. so I can claim expertise in things my friends are interested in?

hello! I'm a freaking expert guitar player and know way more about music than any of you!



3. but you can't explain why that is an ability common to most humans, nor can you name a single experiment where this ability has been tested, nor do you have any idea what the limitations of this ability might be... etc.


what you can do, like everyone else, is form opinions of people. congrads!

1. please explain...how?

2. Expertise? no, but you dont need a qualification to be an expert either.

3. No i can look at the world around me without needing some professor I dont know to tell me the same thing ive already seen in my own living.





Originally posted by inimalist
1) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

2) you have essentially just admitted your ignorance

3) easy = Propagator theory of brain dynamics is generalized to incorporate a new class of patchy propagators that enable treatment of approximately periodic structures such as are seen in the visual cortex. Complex response fields are also incorporated to allow for features such as orientation preference and wave-number selectivity. The results are applied to the corticothalamic system associated with the primary visual cortex. It is found that this system can generate gamma ( > or = 30 Hz) oscillations during stimulation, whose properties are consistent with experimental findings on gamma frequency and bandwidth, and existence of fine-scale spatial structure. It is found that a potential resonance is associated with each reciprocal lattice vector corresponding to periodic modulations of the propagators. It is found that the lowest resonances are the most likely to give rise to noticeable spectral peaks and increases of correlation amplitude, length, and time, and that these aspects are prominent only if the system is close to marginal stability, in accord with previous measurements and discussions of cortical stability. These features also enable gamma resonances to be stimulus-evoked, with substantial resonance sharpening for relatively small changes in mean neural firing rate. The results also imply dependence of gamma frequency on stimulus features.



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16711833


1. erm...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I can do that too, although mines better since ive got an extra "HA"....

2. erm no not really

3. Explain what that actually helps you with your argument? ime not seeing anything to do with what ime argueing...

Originally posted by jalek moye
well iused it as an example of the fact that you can want to do something or like somthing and not really have a reason

a women can want a child just because she wants to have one, thats not being a drone its making a decsion. I guess you're a drone for having friends and realationsships as well.


Its impossible, A women cannot just wake up and say "I badly want a child and its going to be more important to me than the rest of the world!" what nonsense.....

Originally posted by Burning thought
Its an example of what I am saying, fact does not really need proof,

yes it does. Everything needs proof.

Originally posted by Burning thought
since proof can be found for this in most reality shows, comedies laughing at the way people are etc etc.

So, to you, a show that was written by someone to convey whatever message they want is a valid proof, akin to peer-reviewed work?

An edited for entertainment value show has some validity when compared to controlled studies?

Originally posted by Burning thought
You can easily see how ime correct in the fact that people do act like what ive stated,

you stated people are drones

yet have failed to offer a definition of drone

you said those who choose to do things in a similar way to their peer group are drones... So then to not be a drone you would have to have no peer group...

Originally posted by Burning thought
people are manipulated by soceity and you can see it in many areas but mostly in colledges/universities and find out by talking to people of varying ages.

ya, they stopped doing those kind of studies in psych because they learned that the data was suspect to bias and the way people present themselves.

Any type of reported information is treated very skeptically by researchers, and modern techniques are aimed at asking people things in ways that they are unaware of what you are asking them.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Ive looked it up many times, quote from the wiki article what is relevent to your point?

you have looked up neuroplasticity?

funny concept eh? What do you think, if a child was reared in an environment where the input stimuli carried different featural information for different functional purposes (like colour, rather than orientation defined contours) how do you think the low level arrangement of vision would be affected? Does the human brain have enough plasticity to make sense of that environment?

Originally posted by Burning thought
Its impossible, A women cannot just wake up and say "I badly want a child and its going to be more important to me than the rest of the world!" what nonsense.....
but she can one day feel like its time for her to have a child

Originally posted by Burning thought
Explain this one to me please, how would having a qualifcation mean that? Being a psychologist is just a Job, you gain the job by having qualifcations to gain that job, qualifcations which could be just as random as history/geography like which I have.

a) psychology is the not practice of being a psychologist, it is the study of human behaviour using scientific methodology

b) the qualifications one needs to be a psychologist are not random

c) the qualifications necessary to become a psychologist are not randomly distributed or passive as history/geography. One must seek out the specific qualifications.

Originally posted by Burning thought
I could write that paper given a time to look through the subject of Stockholm Syndrome, anyone can do that.

and you prove my point

Originally posted by Burning thought
1. please explain...how?

well, to begin with, there is community psychology, clinical psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, and many other types of psychology. All have research, practice, and teaching fields.

Psychology today stands as one of the most expansive umbrella terms in all of science. To classify psycholoy as those who are practicing psychologist is really to ignore anything exciting from the field, which imho, normally comes from research.

Originally posted by Burning thought
2. Expertise? no, but you dont need a qualification to be an expert either.

depends how you define "qualification"

I would think some degree of experience, no matter what the field, would be required to be an expert. If not formal experience, that is ok, however, in the field of psychology, it has been found more often than not that the folk psychology that people come up with on their own is worthless at best.

Originally posted by Burning thought
3. No i can look at the world around me without needing some professor I dont know to tell me the same thing ive already seen in my own living.

well, thats good for you, because nothing you have seen in your own living (based on what you have posted here) is congruent with the actual study of human behaviour. You might have appraoched a theme or two, but what you have said here is largely much more emblematic of who you are rather than who others are. Its like Freud in that way.

Originally posted by Burning thought
1. erm...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I can do that too, although mines better since ive got an extra "HA"....

2. erm no not really

3. Explain what that actually helps you with your argument? ime not seeing anything to do with what ime argueing...

its an example of how easy it is to see into the mind.

my argument here has changed to yu don't know what you are talking about, rather than anything from earlier. The reason this supports that is because it is an example of how difficult it is to actually do any reading of the content of a person's mind, a practice you claimed was easy.

Originally posted by inimalist
1. So, to you, a show that was written by someone to convey whatever message they want is a valid proof, akin to peer-reviewed work?

An edited for entertainment value show has some validity when compared to controlled studies?



2. you stated people are drones

yet have failed to offer a definition of drone

you said those who choose to do things in a similar way to their peer group are drones... So then to not be a drone you would have to have no peer group...



3. ya, they stopped doing those kind of studies in psych because they learned that the data was suspect to bias and the way people present themselves.

Any type of reported information is treated very skeptically by researchers, and modern techniques are aimed at asking people things in ways that they are unaware of what you are asking them.



4. you have looked up neuroplasticity?

funny concept eh? What do you think, if a child was reared in an environment where the input stimuli carried different featural information for different functional purposes (like colour, rather than orientation defined contours) how do you think the low level arrangement of vision would be affected? Does the human brain have enough plasticity to make sense of that environment?

1. Studies is just what ive done as can anyone else, the fact it has a seal of approval from a university is the only diffrence. The thing is, that a TV show gives you an example of what soceity likes to see, people laugh at reality shows because thats what they are, reality and being shown the foolishness of their own reality people find it funny. Thats why in shows like big brother they fill with either fools who are likely socially controlled because it interests people, thats why a lot of people in big brother have the brain the size of a cherry, for example the women crying and moaning because they did not let her have her makup and her case a few months ago.

2. I like how you say ive given NO definition then give a part of the definition.

Drones:

-follow their peer groups
-follow social ideas like law (i.e its wrong to be gay!)
-cannot give reasons or explanations for actions they call part of their own behavior which you touched on below.

3. You just basically proved my entire point, people present themselves as diffrent characters to fit in/follow the idea of soceity.

4. I dont understand what your asking me, please ask me it in a diffrent more obvious way.

Are you from the UK?

Originally posted by inimalist
a) psychology is the not practice of being a psychologist, it is the study of human behaviour using scientific methodology

b) the qualifications one needs to be a psychologist are not random

c) the qualifications necessary to become a psychologist are not randomly distributed or passive as history/geography. One must seek out the specific qualifications.



and you prove my point



well, to begin with, there is community psychology, clinical psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, and many other types of psychology. All have research, practice, and teaching fields.

Psychology today stands as one of the most expansive umbrella terms in all of science. To classify psycholoy as those who are practicing psychologist is really to ignore anything exciting from the field, which imho, normally comes from research.



depends how you define "qualification"

I would think some degree of experience, no matter what the field, would be required to be an expert. If not formal experience, that is ok, however, in the field of psychology, it has been found more often than not that the folk psychology that people come up with on their own is worthless at best.



well, thats good for you, because nothing you have seen in your own living (based on what you have posted here) is congruent with the actual study of human behaviour. You might have appraoched a theme or two, but what you have said here is largely much more emblematic of who you are rather than who others are. Its like Freud in that way.



its an example of how easy it is to see into the mind.

my argument here has changed to yu don't know what you are talking about, rather than anything from earlier. The reason this supports that is because it is an example of how difficult it is to actually do any reading of the content of a person's mind, a practice you claimed was easy.

You dont need as I said earlier however all these qualifcations and titles to tell you what people are. ou just need to look and talk to the people, if their trying to hide who they are or are lieing like you said earlier about having to ask people so they dont know what their being asked then your proving people react to how soceity wants them to be.

Can you show me the folk psychology that is found worthless?

Its easy looking from a social point of view, looking from a scientific point of view is difficult and in this instance irrelvent as well.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Are you from the UK?
indeed

In sociology you still need to provide quantitative data as evidence, you will not be taken seriously by screaming "just watch TV!!!!!!".

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
In sociology you still need to provide quantitative data as evidence, you will not be taken seriously by screaming "just watch TV!!!!!!".

Yeah, that's where calling people drones whenever they disagree with him comes in. It releases him from having to do any work.

data? like what? how is me telling you where to find information which is stupid becaus the info is simplyin the world around you, if youve not taken your time in trying to understand people or dont try to get to the depths of who a person is rather than who they are trying to create the image of who they are then you obviously need to try to do such things. you dont need a little table showing results of people.

And nobody is screaming....

Watching reality programs is a good way to see the reasons behind people do things since TV programs are usually targeted, especially those for younger generations or my age at the social aspects of their lives, which leads to the instinctual/social control ime talking about.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Yeah, that's where calling people drones whenever they disagree with him comes in. It releases him from having to do any work.

Originally posted by Burning thought
data? like what? how is me telling you where to find information which is stupid becaus the info is simplyin the world around you, if youve not taken your time in trying to understand people or dont try to get to the depths of who a person is rather than who they are trying to create the image of who they are then you obviously need to try to do such things. you dont need a little table showing results of people.

You do need to measure you data and provide actual reproducible evidence if you want to be taken seriously by any thinking person. You can invent bullshit all day long but it'll still baseless and not worth looking at for any real independent thinker.

Originally posted by Burning thought
And nobody is screaming....

You are. Between sobs.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You do need to measure you data and provide actual reproducible evidence if you want to be taken seriously by any thinking person.

So your basically telling me is that I dont want to be taken seriously by you?

Originally posted by Burning thought
data? like what? how is me telling you where to find information which is stupid becaus the info is simplyin the world around you, if youve not taken your time in trying to understand people or dont try to get to the depths of who a person is rather than who they are trying to create the image of who they are then you obviously need to try to do such things. you dont need a little table showing results of people.

And nobody is screaming....

Watching reality programs is a good way to see the reasons behind people do things since TV programs are usually targeted, especially those for younger generations or my age at the social aspects of their lives, which leads to the instinctual/social control ime talking about.

Like an experiment that can be summed up with empirical evidence, how is this hard for you to understand? If you make a claim, it's your responsibility to back it up.

Watching reality tv programmes is most definitely not a good way to try and explain any kind of social phenomenon. The type of people that apply to appear on such programmes are chosen for their "out there" personalities, most of which is false. Also, you're deciding to judge the whole world based on 10 or slightly more people in a house, with rules that are completely different to the outside world? Firstly, that group is far too small for it to be representative of the population. Secondly, you may as well judge everything in human behaviour off of Zimbardo's prison experiment.

Originally posted by Burning thought
So your basically telling me is that I dont want to be taken seriously by you?

No, I'm saying you're a moron.

...okay, let me get this straight.

BT is saying that since he can 'read' people (whatever the hell THAT means), qualifications and study are irrelevant when it comes to psychology, and using anecdotes and stuff he's seen on TV to come to a conclusion is the same as doing a controlled, scientific study?

I just...wow. I cannot fathom the ignorance that can lead to someone saying something like that.

Right, Burning thought, here we go. Psychology and sociology are not nearly so simple as you think they are. If they were, I wouldn't be planning on pursuing a doctorate degree after finishing my undergrad studies.

Though, to be fair, lets also not pretend they are science.

*holds forehead* reality tv....

Originally posted by Bardock42
Though, to be fair, lets also not pretend they are science.

Depends which aspect, I'd say that neuropsychology is.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Though, to be fair, lets also not pretend they are science.

They are science, though. Hence the need for careful study and measurement. Psych and Sociology have come a very long way since Freud and such. There's also biological and neurological psychology which are pretty much inarguablely science, behavioral studies are also very much scientific.

I'm just being stereotypical guys.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png


MATHS RULES!!

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm just being stereotypical guys.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png


MATHS RULES!!

I love the word bubbles

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm just being stereotypical guys.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png


MATHS RULES!!

I love xkcd

If I were more insane than I am (or less insane, depends on the day) I'd prolly be studying physics, actually.

And and and...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_psychology